PUNJAB WATER SUPPLY SEWERAGE BOARD AND ANR. versus RAM SAJIVAN AND ANR.

Citation: [2007] 5 S.C.R. 684 · Decided: 26-04-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

... 
A 
PUNJAB WATER SUPPLY SEWERAGE BOARD AND ANR. 
f 
v. 
RAM SAJIV AN AND ANR. 
APRIL 26, 2007 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Employees on work charge basis-
" 
Conviction for assaulting senior officer-Termination of service-Re-
c instatement in service by labour court pursuant whereto employee joining 
service-Conviction upheld by appellate court-Subsequently, termination 
for misconduct-Direction by High Court to be released on probation-In 
writ petition, High Court directing re-instatement-Correctness of-Held: 
When termination order passed on the ground of misconduct set aside resulting 
in re-instatement, employer was required to take action against employees 
D by initiation of regular departmental proceedings-Long delay not a sufficient 
ground for not initiating departmental proceeding-Also, indiscipline at 
work place is to be considered seriously-Thus, employer granted liberty to 
~ 
initiate disciplinary proceedings against employees. 
E 
Respondents-employee on work charge basis opposed transfer order of 
a workman. Since the transfer order was not cancelled despite protest they 
assaulted a senior officer. Trial court found them guilty in a criminal case 
and convicted them. Their services were terminated. Respondent raised an 
Industrial Dispute. Labour Court directed reinstatement in service with 
continuity in service without back wages. Appellant-employer filed writ petition 
F which was dismissed whereupon respondent joined the services. Appellate 
Court upheld the conviction. Thereafter, show cause notice was issued to 
respondent as to why his service should not be terminated. Respondent filed 
their show cause. Termination order was passed on the charges of misconduct. 
Respondent fded revision application. High Court directed them to be released 
on probation. Respondent then filed writ petition which was disposed of 
G directing the petitioner to decide the representation. Representation filed, was 
dismissed. However, writ petition was allowed. Hence, the present appeal. 
~- ~ 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
H 
684 
PUNJAB WATER SUPPLY SEWERAGE BOARD v. RAM SAJIV AN 
685 
" 
HELD: 1.1. In absence of any statutory rule operating in the field, the A 
' 
services of an employee cannot be terminated only because he was found guilty 
of commission of any offence irrespective of the fact whether the same involved 
.. 
any moral turpitude on his part, but it would be a different thing to say that 
an order made under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, would 
by itself be sufficient to arrive at a conclusion that despite commission of a B 
grave act of indiscipline, no disciplinary proceeding should be initiated. 
[Para 10] [688-D, E[ 
1 
1.2. It is, however, one thing to say that prior to passing of the order of 
' 
termination, a disciplinary proceeding should have been initiated, but it is 
another thing to say as has been stated by the High Court that only because c 
the respondents were let off on probation, the same should not affect his 
service career at all. [Para 15] [692-G-HJ 
1.3. When the order of termination passed by the appellant on the ground 
of misconduct was set aside by the Labour Court, the only course open to it 
was to initiate a regular departmental proceedings. Once they had terminated D 
the services of the respondent, during pendency of the criminal case which 
) 
~ 
was set aside resulting in their re-instatement in services, which although 
did not preclude the appellant from taking further action against the 
respondents, the same was required to be done only in terms of the extent 
rule i.e. by initiation of a regular departmental proceedings. 
E 
[Para 19] [693-G; 694-A, B] 
1.4. The submission of respondent that owing to passage of time, this 
Court would refrain itself from permitting the appellant to initiate a full 
fledged departmental proceeding at this stage, does not appear to be correct. 
There are cases and cases. Factor taking into consideration for issuing such F 
-A 
a direction would be different depending upon the factual matrix involved in 
each case. Indiscipline at the work place has been considered by this Court 
seriously particularly when the misconduct alleged is physical assault of a 
higher authority. The nature of assault, the role played by the concerned 
workman and the question as to whether with the passage of time any 
proceeding should be initiated or not plays an important ro

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