JAGDISH SINGH versus PUNJAB ENGINEERING COLLEGE & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 9 S.C.R. 379 · Decided: 14-05-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

y 
• 
-
(2009) 9 S.C.R. 379 
JAGDISH SINGH 
v. 
PUNJAB ENGINEERING COLLEGE & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 3565 of 2009) 
MAY 14, 2009 
[TARUN CHATTERJEE AND H.L. DATIU, JJ.] 
A 
8 
Service Law - Misconduct - Dismissal - Propriety and 
proportionality of punishment -
Appellant-employee 
dismissed for remaining absent for 15 days without obtaining C 
permission from respondent-employer - Challenge to - Writ 
Petition - Dismissal affirmed by High Court - On appeal, 
held: Courts can interfere with punishment imposed by 
disciplinary authority, only when it is shockingly 
disproportionate to gravity of charges alleged and proved D 
against a delinquent employee and not otherwise - The 
instant case was not a case of habitual absenteeism -
Appellant gave explanation for his absence and for failing to 
apply and obtain leave from employer at the relevant time -
Misconduct alleged definitely amounts to violation of E 
discipline that is expected of an employee, but may not fit into 
category of gross violation of discipline - On facts, having 
regard to unblemished record of appellant in his long career, 
and the reasons for which he remained absent without 
obtaining permission, ends of justice would be met, if F 
punishment imposed by disciplinary authority is modified to 
that of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect -
Further direction issued that appellant would not be entitled 
for any monetary benefits during the period he was out of 
service and that period would be counted only for purpose of G 
his service benefits. 
The appellant was working as a sweeper in 
respondent-college. He remained absent for 15 days 
379 
H 
380 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2009] 9 S.C.R. 
j. 
A 
without obtaining permission, whereupon departmental 
enquiry was initiateci against him by the disciplinary 
authority of respondent-college. 
The appellant gave explanation that he absented 
B 
himself to sort out matrimonial problems of his daughter 
and that he could not take prior permission for leave from 
y 
his employer due to the mental agony, anguish, and 
anxiety that he was undergoing during the relevant time. 
;, 
' 
The Inquiry Officer however found the appellant guilty 
c and consequently the disciplinary authority dismissed the 
appellant from service. The appellant filed writ petition 
challenging the correctness of the dismissal order which 
was dismissed by the High Court. 
In appeal to this Court, it was contended that the 
i-
D punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority was 
disproportionate to the gravity of the charges alleged 
. against the appellant, especially, in view of the 
explanation offered by him for his unauthorized absence 
and lesser punishment would meet the ends of justice. 
E 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The Courts and the Tribunals can interfere 
1 
with the decision of the disciplinary authority, only when 
they are satisfied that the punishment imposed by the 
F 
disciplinary authority is shockingly disproportionate to 
the gravity of the charges alleged and proved against a 
delinquent employee and not Qtherwise. [Para 8] (383-E-
F] 
G 
V. Ramana v. A.P.S.R. T.C. and Ors. (2005) 7 SCC 338, 
·~ 
relied on. 
Kera/a Solvent Extractions Ltd. v. A. Unnikrishnan and 
Anr. (1994) 1 SCALE 631, referred to. 
H 
2.1. The instant case is not a case of habitual 
y 
JAGDISH SINGH v. PUNJAB ENGINEERING 
381 
COLLEGE & ORS. 
absenteeism. The appellant seems to have a good track 
A 
record from the date he joined service as a sweeper. In 
his long career <'f service, he remained absent for 15 days 
on four occasions in the month of February and March 
2004. This was primarily due to sort out the problem of 
his daughter with her in-laws. The filial bondage and the 
B 
emotional attachment might have come in his way to 
apply and obtain leave from the employer. The 
misconduct alleged definitely amounts to violation of 
discipline that is expected of an employee to maintain in 
the establishment, but may not fit into the category of c 
gross violation of discipline. [Para 1 OJ [385-A-C] 
2.2. The order passed by the disciplinary authority 
and affirmed by the High Court is set aside. Taking the 
totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and 
having due regard to unblemished record of the 
appellant, and the reasons for which he remained absent 
without obtaining permission, the ends of justice would 
be met, if punishment imposed by the disciplinary 
authority is modified to that of s

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