http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: STATE OF M.P.& ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: R.N.MISHRA & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       17/09/1997

BENCH: K. VENKATASWAMI, V.N. KHARE

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER,1997 Present:                Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Venkataswami                Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.N. Khare Sakesh Kumar,  Charu Singha and S.K. Agnihotri, Adv. for the appellants. Shiv Sagar Tiwari, Adv. for the Respondents                       J U D G M E N T      The following Judgement of the Court was delivered;                       J U D G M E N T V.N.KAHRE,J.      In the  year 1974-75,  the respondent herein was posted as Forest  Range officer  in Majhgawan Range.  Forest Circle Satna.(M.P)when he  was alleged  to have  committed  certain acts of  misconduct.   Consequently,  in  the  year  1976  a preliminary  inquiry  was  initiated  to  inquire  into  the allegations against the respondent was promoted as Assistant Conservator of  Forest, while the preliminary inquiry was in progress.  A charge-sheet was issued on 12-7-1882 and served upon  the   respondent,  who  was  required  to  submit  his explanation thereto.   The  charges contained  in the Charge sheet related  to the  year 1974-75  when the respondent was posted as  Forest Range Officer in Majhgawan Range, District State Government  by an  order dated  26th September,  1986, inflicted penalty  on the  respondent by withholding his two increments.  The respondent appealed against the said order. During the pendency of the said appeal, the respondent filed Original   Application    before    the    Madhya    Pradesh Administrative  Tribunal  (for  short  "the  tribunal")  for setting aside  the order  dated 26the September,1986 whereby his two increments were withheld.      The Tribunal,  being of  the opinion  that by promoting the respondent  to the  Post  of  Assistant  Conservator  of Forest in  the Year  1977,  the  allegations  of  misconduct attributed to the respondent stood condoned and as such, the penalty imposed  upon him  by the  impugned order dated 26th September, 1986  passed by  the State Government and allowed the  Application  of  the  respondent.    Aggrieved  by  the judgement and  order dated  23.4.1993 passed by the Tribunal in O.A.  No.492/89, the  State Government  has  come  up  in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

appeal before this Court.      Learned Counsel  for  the  appellants  urged  that  the principle of  condonation of  misconduct under  the ordinary law Master  and Servant  is not  applicable where in law the appointing authority  is required to consider the case of an employee for  promotion despite  the pendency of preliminary inquiry against  him and  the employee is promoted to higher post having found fit for promotion.  In short, the argument is,  that  by  promoting  the  respondent  to  the  post  of Assistant  Conservator   of  Forest,   the   allegation   of misconduct against  him, which  is  the  subject  matter  of inquiry, in law, cannot be treated as misconduct.      Before we advert to the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant, it may be seen as to what is the doctrine of condonation  of misconduct  under  the  ordinary  law  of master Servant,  an employer has option to punish an earring employer if  voluntary elects  not to  take  any  action  to punish the  delinquent officer,  then it  would be a case of Condonation of Misconduct by the master.  In labor and Labor Relations [48 Am Jr 2nd 639] - it is stated thus:      ":636.- Condonation of Misconduct.      The   doctrine    of    condonation      prohibits    an    employer    from      misleadingly agreeing to return his      employees to  work and  then taking      disciplinary  forgiven.    (Packers      Hide Asso.V. NLRB (CAB)360 F2d 59).      Condonations can be found, however,      only  where   there  is  clear  and      convincing   evidence    that   the      employer  has  completely  forgiven      the   guilty   employee   for   his      misconduct  and  has  agreed  to  a      resumption    of    the    employee      relationship    as     though    no      misconduct had  occurred.  [Packers      Hide Asso. V. NLRB (supra)]."      In L.W  Middleton  v.Harry  Plyfair      [AIR 1925  Cal.87 at  p.88] it  was      held thus:      "If a  master on  discovering  that      his  servant  has  been  guilty  of      misconduct  which   would   justify      which would  justify  a  dismissal,      Yet elects  to continue  him in his      service,   he    cannot   at    any      subsequent  time   dismiss  him  on      account of that which he has waived      or condoned."      In   District    Council,   Amraoti      through Secretary V. Vithal Vinayak      Bapat [AIR 1941 Nagpur 125], it was      held that:      "Once a  master  has  condoned  any      misconduct on  a  part  of  servant      which    would    have    justified      dismissal or  a  fine,  he  cannot,      after  such  condonation,  go  back      upon his  election to  condone  and      claim a  right it  dismiss  him  or      impose  a   fine   or   any   other      punishment  in   respect   of   the      offence which has been condoned."      The substance of the decision cited above is that under ordinary law  of Master  and Servant  once an  employer  has

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

condoned any  misconduct attributed  to an  employee,  which have otherwise  justified his  dismissed or  punishment, the employer cannot  after such  condonation go  back  upon  his election to  condone  and  assert  a  right  to  punish  the servant.   Bu, the question that arises for consideration in the instant  case is, whether the doctrine of condonation of misconduct under  ordinary law  of master and servant can be pressed into  service  where  an  employee  is  governed  by statutory rules,  and under  law the employer is required to consider the  case of an employee for promotion against whom a preliminary  enquiry is pending.  To begin with when there is  an   offer  and   acceptance  of   an  appointment,  the relationship between  the employee  and  Government  may  be contractual, but  once an employee is appointed, he acquires a status,  as his  conditions of  service are  regulated  by statutory rules  or  provisions  of  an  Act.    Under  law, government is  not justified  in excluding  an employee from the field  of consideration  for  promotion  merely  on  the ground   that    certain   disciplinary    proceedings   are contemplated or some preliminary inquiry to inquire into the misconduct attributed  to that employee are pending.  In New Bank of  India V.  N.P.Sehgal & Anr. [J.T. 499], it was held by this court, thus:      "......   the    mere   fact   that      disciplinary    proceedings     are      contemplated or under consideration      against  an   employee   does   not      constitute a  good ground  for  not      considering the  employee concerned      for promotion  if he is in the zone      of  consideration   nor  would   it      constitute  a   good   ground   for      denying  the   promotion   if   the      employee  is  considered  otherwise      fit for promotion."      In B.C.  Chaturvedi  V.  Union  of  India  and  others, [(1995) 6 SCC 749 at page 757] this court held as follows:      "It   is    true    that    pending      disciplinary    proceeding,     the      appellant was promoted as Assistant      commissioner of  Income tax.    Two      courses in  this behalf are open to      the  competent   authority,   Viz.,      sealed  cover  procedure  which  is      usually  followed,   or  promotion,      subject to  the result  of  pending      disciplinary  action.    Obviously,      the appropriate  authority  adopted      the  latter  course  and  gave  the      benefit   of   promotion   to   the      appellant.   Such an  action  would      not stand  as an impediment to take      pending  disciplinarian  action  to      its  logical   conclusion.      The      advantage or  promotion  gained  by      the delinquent  officer would be on      impediment  to   take   appropriate      decision  and   to  pass  an  order      consistent  with   the  finding  of      provide misconduct."      In view  of these  decisions, it  must be  held that an employee/officer  who  is  required  to  be  considered  for promotion, despite  the pendency of p[preliminary inquiry or contemplated inquiry  against him  is promoted, having found fit, the  promotion so  made would not amount to condonation

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

of misconduct which is subject matter of the inquiry.      In the  present  case,  misconduct  attributed  to  the respondent came to light in the year 1976 when a preliminary enquiry was  ordered and  while the  inquiry was continuing, the State  Government was  required to  consider the case of the respondent  for  promotion  to  the  post  of  Assistant Conservator of  Forest.   Under law,  the  State  Government could not  have excluded  the respondent  from the  zone  of consideration, merely  on  the  ground  that  a  preliminary inquiry  to  enquiry  into  the  allegations  of  misconduct attributed to  him was  pending.   In such  a situation, the doctrine of  condonation of  midconduct cannot be applied as to wash  off the  acts of  misconduct which  was the subject matter of preliminary enquiry,  We are, therefor, of opinion that  the  promotion  of  the  respondent  to  the  post  of Assistant  Conservator   of  Forest   would  not  amount  to condonation of  misconduct alleged against him which was the subject matter  of preliminary  inquiry.   Consequently, the punishment imposed on the respondent by the State Government was valid  and legal.   The  decision  relied  upon  by  the Tribunal as well as by learned counsel for the respondent in the case  of Lal  Audhraj Singh  V. State  of M.P. [AIR 1967 M.P. 284]  is not  applicable to  the facts  of the  present case, as  in that case, the employer had a choice to inflict punishment on  the employee  but the employer did not choose to punish  the employee  and in that context, it was held by the High  Court that  the  misconduct  attributable  to  the employee was condoned.      For the  foregoing reasons,  the  judgement  and  order dated 23.4.1993  passed by the Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in  O.A.NO.. 492/89,  is set  aside and the present appeal allowed.  There shall be no order as to costs.