REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.3565 OF 2009 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 16527 of 2008)

Jagdish Singh                                                                        ……….Appellant

Versus

Punjab Engineering College & Ors.                                     .... ...Respondents   

JUDGMENT  

H.L. Dattu,J.  

 Delay condoned.  Leave granted.

2) This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment and order of the  

High Court  of  Punjab and Haryana in Civil  Writ  Petition No.1993 of  

2006 dated  28.08.2007,  wherein  and  whereunder,  the  High Court  has  

dismissed  the  writ  petition  by  affirming  the  order  passed  by  the  

disciplinary authority of the respondent college.

3) The facts in brief are as under:-

The  appellant  was  working  as  a  Sweeper  in  the  Respondent-Punjab  

Engineering College.  He remained absent unauthorizedly for the period  

1

from 11.02.2004 to 13.02.2004, 17.02.2004 to 20.02.2004, 05.03.2004 to  

09.03.2004  and  23.03.2004  to  26.03.2004.   The  departmental  enquiry  

was initiated  by  the  disciplinary  authority  of  the  college  by  issuing a  

charge memo containing the allegation of unauthorized absence and an  

inquiry officer  was appointed to enquire into  the charges alleged.   In  

reply to the charge memo and also before the inquiry officer, the plea of  

the workman was that in order to save matrimonial life of his daughter  

due to indifferent attitude of her in-laws, he had no other go but to absent  

himself on different dates during the month of February and March, 2004  

and further he could not take prior permission from the employer due to  

mental agony, anguish, and the anxiety that he was undergoing during the  

relevant time.

4) The inquiry officer after holding the enquiry has submitted his enquiry  

report wherein, he has opined, that, the workman is guilty of the charges  

alleged  in  the  charge  memo.   The  disciplinary  authority  of  the  

respondent-college, after receipt of the report of the inquiry officer has  

accepted the report and has passed an order dated 30.09.2004, imposing a  

major penalty of dismissal from service.  

5) The appellant had called in question the correctness or otherwise of the  

order passed by disciplinary authority of the respondent-college by filing  

2

civil writ petition before the High Court. The Court by its order dated  

28.08.2007 has dismissed the writ petition.   

6) At  the  time  of  hearing  of  the  appeal,  the  only  contention  canvassed  

before  us  by  the  learned  counsel  for  the  appellant  was  that,  the  

punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is disproportionate to  

the  gravity  of  the  charges alleged  against  the  appellant,  especially,  in  

view of  the  explanation  offered  by  the  appellant  for  his  unauthorized  

absence for a few days in the month of February and March 2004 and  

lesser punishment would meet the ends of justice.

7) Per  contra,  learned  counsel  for  the  respondent,  submitted,  that,  

unauthorized absence is a serious misconduct and the said charge being  

proved against the employee, the disciplinary authority was justified in  

imposing a major penalty of dismissal from service.

8) The  Courts  and  the  Tribunals  can  interfere  with  the  decision  of  the  

disciplinary authority, only when they are satisfied that the punishment  

imposed by the disciplinary authority is shockingly disproportionate to  

the  gravity  of  the  charges  alleged  and  proved  against  a  delinquent  

employee and not otherwise.  Reference can be made to the decision of  

this Court in the case of V. Ramana Vs. A.P.S.R.T.C. and Ors. (2005) 7  

SCC 338,  wherein it is stated:

3

“The common thread running through in  all  these  decisions is that the court should not interfere with  the administrator’s decision unless it was illogical or  suffers from procedural impropriety or was shocking  to the conscience of the Court, in the sense that it  was in defiance of logic or moral standards.  In view  of  what  has  been  stated  in  Wednesbury  case  the  court would not go into the correctness of the choice  made by the administrator open to him and the court  should  not  substitute  its  decision  for  that  of  the  administrator.   The  scope  of  judicial  review  is  limited to the deficiency in decision-making process  and not the decision.

To put it differently unless the punishment imposed  by  the  disciplinary  authority  or  the  Appellate  Authority  shocks  the  conscience  of  the  court/Tribunal,  there  is  no  scope  for  interference.  Further to shorten litigations it may, in exceptional  and rare  cases,  impose appropriate  punishment  by  recording cogent  reasons in  support  thereof.   In  a  normal  course,  if  the  punishment  imposed  is  shockingly disproportionate it would be appropriate  to direct the disciplinary authority or the Appellate  Authority to reconsider the penalty imposed.”

9) The other principle that requires to be kept in view, is the observation  

made  by  this  Court  in  Kerala  Solvent  Extractions  Ltd.  Vs.  A.  

Unnikrishnan and Anr. (1994 (1) SCALE 631,  wherein it is stated:

“In recent times, there is an increasing evidence of this,  perhaps well meant  but wholly unsustainable tendency  towards  a  denudation  of  the  legitimacy  of  judicial  reasoning and process.  The reliefs granted by the courts  must  be  seen  to  be  logical  and  tenable  within  the  framework of the law and should not incur  and justify  the criticism that the jurisdiction of the courts tends to  degenerate  into  misplaced  sympathy,  generosity  and  private  benevolence.   It  is  essential  to  maintain  the  

4

integrity  of  legal  reasoning  and  the  legitimacy  of  the  conclusions.  They must emanate logically from the legal  findings  and  the  judicial  results  must  be  seen  to  be  principled and supportable on those findings.  Expansive  judicial mood of mistaken and misplaced compassion at  the  expense  of  the  legitimacy  of  the  process  will  eventually lead to mutually irreconcilable situations and  denude  the  judicial  process  of  its  dignity,  authority,  predictability and respectability.”

10)The instant  case is not a case of habitual absenteeism.  The appellant  

seems to have a good track record from the date he joined service as a  

sweeper.  In his long career of 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 emotional attachment might have come in his  

way to apply and obtain leave from the employer.  The misconduct that is  

alleged, in our view, would 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 gross violation of discipline.  We hasten  

to add if it were to be habitual absenteeism, we would not have ventured  

to entertain this appeal.

11)In the result,  we allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the  

disciplinary authority dated 30.09.2004 and affirmed by the High Court  

vide  its  order  dated  28.08.2007.   Taking  the  totality  of  the  facts  and  

circumstances of the case and having due regard to unblemished record  

5

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 stoppage of  

two increments with cumulative effect and further declare that he would  

not  entitled for any monetary benefits during the period he was out of  

service and that  period would be counted only for the purpose of  his  

service benefits. We direct the disciplinary authority to issue appropriate  

orders in this regard within one month from the date of production of  

certified copy of this Court’s order by either of the parties.

12)The appeal is accordingly disposed of. However, there will be no order as  

to costs.  

                                                                                     …………………………………J.                                                                                        [TARUN CHATTERJEE]

                                                                                   …………………………………J.                                                                                       [ H.L. DATTU ] New Delhi, May 14,  2009.

6