CHENNAI METROPOLITAN WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD AND OTHERS versus T.T. MURALI BABU

Citation: [2014] 1 S.C.R. 987 · Decided: 10-02-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.L. GOKHALE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 1 S.C.R. 987 
CHENNAI METROPOLITAN WATER SUPPLY AND 
A 
SEWERAGE BOARD AND OTHERS 
v. 
T.T. MURALI BABU 
(Civil Appeal No. 1941 of 2014) 
FEBRUARY 10, 2014 
B 
[H.L. GOKHALE AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.) 
SERVICE LAW: 
c 
Misconduct - Unauthorised long absence from duty -
Dismissal from service -- Reinstatement directed by High 
Court without back wages - Held: Employee remained 
unauthorisedly absent for a long time - Medical certificate was 
filed belatedly - Charges were found proved - Single Judge 
D 
and Division Bench of High Court did not advert to these 
issues - High Court has erred in giving emphasis on first time 
desertion and directing reinstatement - Plea of absence of 
"habitual absenteeism" is unacceptable -
Besides, 
respondent was a Junior Engineer. Regard being had to his 
E 
official position, it was expected of him to maintain discipline, 
act with responsibility, perform his duty with sincerity and serve 
the institution with honesty - This kind of conduct cannot be 
countenanced as it creates a concavity in the work culture and 
ushers indiscipline in an organization --Chennai Metropolitan 
Water Supply And Sewerage Board Employees (Discipline 
And Appeal) Regulations, 1978 -- Regulations 6(1) and 6(2). 
Proportionality of punishment - Long absence from duty 
- Dismissal - Held: Doctrine of proportionality in the context 
F 
of imposition of punishment in service law gets attracted when 
G 
the court on the analysis of material brought on record comes 
to the conclusion that punishment imposed by disciplinary 
authority or appellate authority shocks the conscience of court 
987 
H 
988 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 1 S.C.R. 
A -- Unauthorized absence by an employee, as misconduct, 
·cannot be put into a straight-jacket formula for imposition of 
punishment - Respondent by remaining unauthorisedly 
absent for such a long period with inadequate reason and in 
not responding to the communications from the employer 
B while he was unauthorisedly absent, had not only shown 
indiscipline but also made an attempt to get away with it -
Such a conduct is not permissible -- Doctrine of proportionality 
does not get remotely attracted to such a case - The 
punishment is definitely not shockingly disproportionate. 
c 
DELA YILACHES: 
Misconduct - Dismissal from service - Four years delay 
in filing writ petition -Held: Doctrine of delay and /aches should 
not be lightly brushed aside - A writ court is required to weigh 
D the explanation offered and the acceptability of the same - It 
should bear in mind that it is exercising an extraordinary and 
equitable jurisdiction - It is the duty of the court to scrutinize 
whether such enormous delay is to be ignored without any 
justification - That apart, in the instant case, such belated 
E approach gains more significance as the respondent-
employee being absolutely careless to his duty and nurturing 
a lackadaisical attitude to the responsibility had remained 
unauthorisedly absent -- Such delay does not deserve any 
indulgence - Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 226. 
F 
The respondent, who was working as a Junior 
Engineer in Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and 
Sewerage Board, remained continuously absent from 
duty w.e.f.28.8.1995 without any intimation and did not 
respond to the repeated memoranda/reminders requiring 
G him to explain his unauthorized absence from duty and 
to rejoin duty. A charge-sheet was issued to him on 
11.9.1996 stating that he had failed to submit an 
explanation to the first charge memo dated 11.10.1995 
inspite of reminders and that he deserted his post by 
H 
CHENNAI METROPOLITAN WATER SUPPLY AND 
989 
SEWERAGE BOARD v. TT MURALI BABU 
remaining unauthorisedly absent from duty from 
A 
28.8.1995, and thereby committed misconduct under 
Regulations 6(1) and 6(2) of the Chennai Metropolitan 
Water Supply and, Sewerage Board Employees 
(Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1978. On 1.4.1997 he 
reported to duty with the medical certificate for the period 
B 
28.8.1995 to 31.3.1997. The enquiry officer found that the 
charges were proved. The disciplinary authority by order 
dated 16.4.1998 imposed the punishment of dismissal 
from service. The departmental appeal filed by the 
respondent was dismissed. However, the single Judge c 
of the High Court allowed his writ petition, set aside the 
punishment of dismissal and directed his reinstatement 
with continuity of service but without back wages holding 
that the punishment of di

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.