RAMA KANT MISRA versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

Citation: [1983] 1 S.C.R. 648 · Decided: 21-10-1982 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.A. DESAI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
RAMA KANT MISRA 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS 
October 21, 1982 
jO.A. DESAI AND V. BALAICRISHNA ERADJ, Jl.] . 
lndu1trial Disputes Act, 1947-Seetion llA-Workman chQJ'fed with use of 
threatening and abusive language against' a senior officer unbecoming of a 
disciplined worker-Dismissed from 1errie1-Punlshment, whether disproportionately 
heavy or ex,ceuive-Tests for determining punishment. 
\ 
In order to avoid the charge of vindictiveness, justice, equity and fairplay 
demand that punishment must alwa)'S be oommensurate with tbe gravity of the 
offence charged. 
Io the development of industrial relation norms law has 
moved far from the days when quantum of punis_hment was considered a 
managerial function with the courts having no power to substitute their own 
decision in place of that of the management. More often, the courts found that, 
while the misconduct was proved, the punishment was disproportionately heavy. 
As the situation then stood, courts reinained powerless and had to be passive 
sufferers incapable of curing the injustice. Parliament stepped in and enacted 
s. IJA of the Industrial Disputes Act by which the Labour Court is clothed with 
jurisdiction and. power to substitute its measure of punishment in place of the 
managerial wisdom once it is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal 
was not justified in the facts apd ctrcumsl•nces of the case. Tl:iis Court, while 
exercising jurisdiction under Article 136 can examine wbecher the LabOur Court 
bas properly approached the matter in exercising or rtfusing to exercise its 
power under section llA. The words that the court must be "satisfied that the 
order of discharge or dismissal was not justified" occurring in section llA 
indicace that even though misconduct is proved and a penalty bas to be imposed, 
the extreme penalty of dismissal or discharge: was not justified in the faces andill 
circumstan~es of the case meaning thereby that the .punisbmept. was eith~ 
disproportiona!e.ly heavy or excessive. 
In the instant case the char~e against the appellant-workman. was chat be 
bad used threacening and abusive language against ~ senior officer unbecoming 
of a disciplined workman and bad adopced· a threatening poscure, subversive of 
discipline. An inquiry was conducted. On the recommendations of tho Inquiry 
Officer the workman was dismissed "from service. 
The La'lour Court upheld the order of dismissal and the High Court 
dismissed the appellant's petition under Article 227. 
.... 
( 
• 
• 
RAMAKANT v. U.P. STATE (Desai, J.) 
649 
On the question whether the· order of dismissal Was justified on the facts 
and in the circumstances of the case. 
HELD: The order of dismissal was not justified. [653 A] 
A 
It is a well recognized prin~iple of jurisprudence, which permits penalty to 
be imposed for misconduct, that the penalty must be commensurate with the 
B 
gravity of the offence charged. [653 C-DJ 
The appellant-workman had put in more than 14 years of service and 
bad been the Secretary of the ~orkers~ uniOn. 
The management had not shown 
that there was any blameworthy conduct on_ his part during the period of bis 
service. The misconduct aiJeged against him consisted of use of language which 
was indiscreet and improper, disclosing a 1hreatening posture. [653 E-F] 
· 
• 
When it is ·said that his language disclosed a threatening posture it was the 
subjective conclusion of the person who heard the language because voice 
modulation of each person in the society differs. Indiscreet, improper, abusive 
language may show lack of culture. But mere use of such language on one 
occasion unconnected with any subsequent positive action and not preceded 
by any blameworthy conduct cannot permit an extreme penalty .of dismissal from 
service. [653 F-H] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1531 of 
1980. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
the 9th August, 1978 of the Alla.habad High Court in C.M. Writ No. 
6788 of 1978 
, •. K. Goel for the Appellant 
S. Markendeya for. Respondent. 
The Order of the Court was delivered by 
DESAI J. Appellant Ramakant Misra joined service in the 
c 
0 
E 
F 
Kanpur Electric Supply Administration· ('Administration' for short) 
G 
which was then a Department .of the Government of Uttar Pradesh. 
On the constitution of U.P. Electricity Board .('Board' for short), 
under the provisions of Electricity (supply)· Act, 1948 ('Act' for 
short), with effect from Apri

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