HINDUSTAN PAPER CORPORATION versus PURNENDU CHAKROBARTY AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 159 · Decided: 30-10-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

HINDUSTAN PAPER CORPORATION 
A 
v. 
PURNENDU CHAKROBARTY AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 30, 1996 
[B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law : 
Hindustan Paper Corporation Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules: 
Rule 23 (vi) (E). 
Loss of Lien in the event of unauthorised absence or overstayal of 
leave for more than specified number of consecutive days-Validity a/-
Held: The said provision subject to principles of natural justice-Hence, 
not arbitrary, unreasonable or violative of Article 14-Constitution of India, 
1950, Article 14. 
Rules 23(vi)(E) and 25-Principles of natural justice-Requirement 
of complying with-Before termination of lien under R23 (vi) (E)-Held: 
was satisfied by calling for explanation of employee concerned-Holding 
c 
D 
of enquiry under R25 not necessary as loss of lien under said Rule did not 
amount to major penalty-Mere show cause sufficient when only loss of E 
lien was involved. 
Rule 23 (vi)(E)-Lien-Termination of-For unauthorised absence 
for more than prescribed period-Such termination set aside by High Court-
Held: Although High Court ought not to have set aside such termination F 
of lien, in the circumstances of the case, directed to be treated as compulsory 
retirement from date of order of termination of lien-Employee concerned 
directed to be given all pensionary and terminal benefits. 
The respondent was an employee of the appellant-Corporation. 
He entered service as a Fire Fighting Officer and was promoted as G 
Assistant Manager (Security and Fire-Fighting). The day after he 
applied for cdsual leave an FIR was lodged against him under Sections 
302/201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. He 
continued to apply for extension of leave but the ~ppellant­
Corporation refused to sanction his application and informed him 
that he was liable to be treated as an unauthorised absentee. The H 
159 
160 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 
A appellant-Corporation called for his explanation and finding his 
explanation to be improper passed an order that under Rule 23(vi)(E) 
of the Hindustan Paper Corporation Conduct, Discipline and Appeal 
Rules he had lost lien on his appointment with the Corporation. 
The respondent-employee filed a writ petition before the High 
B Court challenging the aforesaid order. The High Court set aside the 
order and directed re-instatement of the respondent with 50% back 
wages. Being aggrieved the appellant-Corporation preferred the 
present appeal. 
During the pendency of the appellant's appeal, this Court 
C directed the appellant to pay I /5th of the arrears to the respondent. 
This direction was complied with. By the time of this decision the 
respondent was due to retire shortly. 
On behalf of the appellant-Corporation it was contended that 
Rule 23(vi)(E) of the Rules had to be construed by reading into it the 
D principles of natural justice. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
Held I. In view of the concession by the appellant-Corporation 
E that Rule 23 (vi) (E) of the Hindustan Paper Corporation Conduct, 
Discipline and Appeal Rules must be read and given effect to subject 
to the compliance of the principles of natural justice, it cannot be 
said that the Rule is arbitrary or unreasonable or ultra vires Article 
14 of the Constitution. Be.fore taking action under the said clause, an 
opportunity should be given to the employee to show cause against 
F the action proposed and if the cause shown by the employee is good 
and acceptable, it follows that no action in terms of the said clause 
will be taken. Understood in this sense, it cannot be said that the said 
clause is either unreasonable or violative of ArtHcle 16 of the 
Constitution. (167-B-C] 
G 
2. The requirement of complying with the principles of natural 
justice before terminating the lien under Rule 23 (vi)(E) of the Rules 
was satisfied by calling for the explanation of the respondent. Holding 
of an enquiry under R. 25 of the Rules is not necessary as loss of lien 
under Rule 23 (vi)(E) does not amount to a major penalty. A mere 
H issue of show cause notice would suffice where only loss of lien is 
4 . 
HINDUSTAN PAPERCORPN. t'. PURNENDU CHAKROBARlY [VENKATASWAMl,J.] 
161 
involved. [167-FG) 
A 
D.K. Yadav v. JMA Industries. Ltd., [1993) 3 SCC 259; Hindustan 
Steel Ltd. v. Presiding Officer. Labour Court, [1976] 4 SCC 222; L. Robert 
D.Souza v. Executive Engineer, Southern Railway, [1982] 1 SCC 645 and 
Delhi Transport Corporation v. D.TC. Mazdoor Con

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