http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: RASIKLAL VAGHAJIBHAI PATEL

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANOTHER

DATE OF JUDGMENT14/01/1985

BENCH: DESAI, D.A. BENCH: DESAI, D.A. MISRA RANGNATH

CITATION:  1985 AIR  504            1985 SCR  (2) 556  1985 SCC  (2)  35        1985 SCALE  (1)101

ACT:       Labour     Law-Misconduct-Whether   suppression     of material  fact  regarding  prior  dismissal    the  time  of obtaining  fresh   employment  Constitutes   "misconduct  "- Whether Standing   Orders  or   Service  Regulation,  should enumerate an  act   or  omission as "misconduct" -Effect  of non-prescribing   the    acts      of  "misconduct"  in  the Standing Order/Service Regulations.

HEADNOTE:       The   petitioner  applied for  the post  of Head Clerk with Ahmedabad   Municipal  Corporation in a prescribed form which   contained  a column requiring the applicant to state whether he   had  been   removed from  service and,  if  so, reasons for  such   removal. The petitioner, who had earlier been removed  from service  of   the Sales Tax Department on the ground  of proved  misconduct, made   a false suggestion that he  had voluntarily  left service because  of transfer. Ultimately,   when these  facts came  to   light,   he   was charge-sheeted  and  removed from service. The Labour  Court rejected   his petition against removal from service on  the ground that  the misconduct  alleged against  him is proved. Thereupon,   he filed   a   writ petition in the High Court. The High   Court  while dismissing  his  petition  held that even if   the  allegation  of misconduct does not constitute misconduct amongst  those enumerated   in    the    relevant service regulations  yet   the  employer  can attribute what would  otherwise   per  se  be  a  misconduct  though    not enumerated and punish him for the same.       Dismissing the petition by the petitioner, ^               HELD:  (1) It is a well-settled canon of penal jurisprudence   that removal  or dismissal  from service  on account of  the misconduct   constitutes  penalty in law and therefore the   workman  sought to be charged for misconduct must have  adequate advance  notice  of  what action or what conduct   would   constitute misconduct.   Therefore, under, the Certified Standing  Orders  or service  regulations,  it is necessary  for the  employer  to  prescribe what would be the misconduct  so that  the workman/employee   knows    the pitfall he  should guard against. But,  if  after undergoing the elaborate  exercise of  enumerating misconduct,   it  is

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

left   to the  unbridled discretion of the employer  to  dub any  conduct   as  misconduct,   the  workman   will  be  on tenterhooks and   he  will be  punished  by  ex  post  facto determination by the employer.  Therefore, it cannot be left to the vagaries of management  to say ex post facto 557 that   some   acts of  omission or commission nowhere  found to   be enumerated   in  A the  relevant standing  order  is none-the-less   a misconduct not strictly falling within the enumerated misconduct  in  the  relevant  standing order but yet a   misconduct   for  the purpose of imposing a penalty. [559C-E; B-C; 561C and D]           Glaxo Laboratories v. The Presiding Officer Labour Court Meerut & Ors. [1984] 1 SCR 230 followed.              Salem Erode Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd v. Salem Erode  Electricity  Distribution  Co.  Ltd.  Employees Union [1966]   2  SCR  498, Western India Match Company Lid. v. Workman  [1974] SCR  434, Workmen of Lakheri Cement Works Ltd. v.  Associated Cement  Companies Ltd.  1970 20.  Indian Factories &  Labour   Reports 243  &  Rohtak Hissar District Electricity Supply   Co.   Ltd.  v. State of Utter Pradesh & Ors. [1966] 2 SCR 863 referred to.          (2)  It is thus well-settled that unless either  in the Certified  Standing Order  or in the service regulations an act  or omission  is  prescribed as misconduct, it is not open   to   the employer    to  fish  out  some  conduct  as misconduct and  punish   the workman even though the alleged misconduct  would  not  be    comprehended  in  any  of  the enumerated misconduct. [561E]            (3)  In the instant case, the petitioner is shown to  be guilty  of suppression of a material fact which would weigh   with any  employer  in  giving  him  employment  and therefore, the  case   of  the  petitioner  does  not  merit consideration under  Art. 136  of the  Constitution  and his petition for  special leave  to   appeal   must  accordingly fail. The  High Court  was right  in  holding    that    the suppresio    veri  and  suggestion  falsi  would  constitute misconduct. But,  the finding of the High Court that even if the misconduct  does   not fall  in any  of  the  enumerated misconducts, yet  for  the purpose of service regulation, it would none-the-less  be a  misconduct punishable  as such is not the correct view of law and it has to be rejected.                                       [557H; 561H; 562 A, B]

JUDGMENT:              CIVIL   APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Special  Leave Petition (Civil) No. 5523 of 1984.       From  the Judgment and Order dated 28th November, 1983 of the   High  Court of Gujarat in Special Civil Application No.  4649 OF 1981.       Vimal Dave for the Petitioner.       The Judgment of the Court was delivered by       DESAI,   J.  Petitioner  is  shown  to  be  guilty  of suppression   of a  material fact which would weigh with any employer   in giving  him employment and therefore, the case of the   petitioner does  not merit consideration under Art. 136 of  the  Constitution and his petition for special leave to appeal against the decision of a Division Bench Of 558 the   Gujarat  High Court in Special Application No 4649  of 1981 dated   November   28,1983   must accordingly fail  but this  short epistle became a compelling necessity in view of the statement  of law  appearing in the judgment of the High

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

Court which  if permitted  to go  uncorrected, some innocent person may  suffer in future. That is the only justification for this short order.          The  petitioner on his application was recruited in the Sales   Tax  Department on September 30, 1950 and at the relevant time  he  was working as Sales Tax Inspector. By an order   dated January,  31 1964 of the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Gujarat  State, the petitioner  who was at the relevant time working  as Sales  Tax Inspector   was    charged  with misconduct of  gross   negligence    and  acted  with  gross impropriety in  demanding illegal    gratification,  and  as these charges  were held  proved, the Commissioner of  Sales Tax   imposed   a penalty  of removal  from service. This is not   in dispute  and therefore it can be safely stated that the petitioner  was  removed  from the  service of the Sales Tax  Department  on account of the proved misconduct.       After   being  removed from  the Sales Tax Department, the  petitioner  joined  service  in  Bhakta  Vallabh  Dhola College,   Ahmedabad (’college’  for short) on May 15, 1964. While  continuing   his  service    with  the  college,  the petitioner applied  on January   13,  1968 for  the post  of Head-Clerk  with   Ahmedabad  Municipal  Corporation.    The application had to be made in  the  prescribed  form, Column No. 14  of which  required the  applicant to  state  whether the   applicant had  been removed  from service  and if  so, reasons for   removal  and if  the applicant had voluntarily left   previous service,   reasons   for leaving the service should   be   stated.   While    answering  this column, the petitioner stated  that he   had  served   in  the Sales Tax Department from  September 30,   1950   to  January  31,1964 and that  he has  resigned from   service  due  to transfer. It   thus appeared  that the  petitioner   was   guilty   of suppressio  veri   and  suggestio   false  inasmuch   as  he suppressed the  material  fact  that  he  was  removed  from service on  the ground   of  proved  misconduct and  that he made a  false suggestion   that   he  had  voluntarily  left service because  of transfer.  Ultimately when  these  facts came to  light,  he  was  charge-sheeted  and  removed  from service.  A  petition  to the Labour Court was  rejected  on the ground   that   the  misconduct  alleged  against    the petitioner   is proved.  His writ petition to the High Court proved   unsuccessful. Hence  he  filed  this  petition  for special leave. 559           The  High Court while dismissing the petition held that even   if  A the  allegation  of  misconduct  does  not constitute   misconduct  amongst  those  enumerated  in  the relevant service  regulations yet the employer can attribute what would  otherwise per   se  be  a  misconduct though not enumerated and  punish  him  for  the same. This proposition appears to  us to  be startling  because even though  either under  the   Certified  Standing     Orders    or    service regulations,   it is necessary for the employer to prescribe what would   be  the misconduct so that the workman/employee knows   the pitfall   he  should  guard  against.  If  after undergoing the    elaborate    exercise    of    enumerating misconduct, it   is  left  to  the unbridled  discretion  of the employer  to dub   any   conduct   as  misconduct,   the workman will  be on tenterhooks and he  will  be punished by ex post  facto determination by the employer. It is  a well- settled  canon of penal jurisprudence-removal  or  dismissal from  service  on  account  of  the  misconduct  constitutes penalty   in law-that  the  workmen sought to be charged for misconduct   must  have  adequate  advance  notice  of  what section or  what conduct  would constitute   misconduct. The

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

legal proposition  as stated   by  the High Court would have necessitated  in  depth  examination,  but  for  a    recent decision of  this Court  in Glaxo  Laboratories    v.    The Presiding   Officer, Labour Court Meerut & Ors.(1) in  which this Court   specifically  repelled an  identical contention advanced    by  Mr.  Shanti  Bhushan,  learned  counsel  who appeared for the employer in that case observing as under:                  "Relying on  these observations, Mr. Shanti      Bhushan urged  that   this Court has in terms held that      there can be  some  other misconduct  not enumerated in      the standing  order and   for   which  the employer may      take appropriate  action. This  observation  cannot  be      viewed divorced  from  the  facts  of  the  case.  What      started   in the   face   of the court in that case was      that   the   employer  had raised a technical objection      ignoring the  past history  of litigation  between  the      parties that  application  under  Sec.  33A  was    not      maintain  able.  It is in this context that this  Court      observed that  the  previous action might have been the      outcome   of   some misconduct  not enumerated  in  the      standing order.  But the  extracted  observation cannot      be elevated  to a  proposition  of    law    that  some      misconduct neither defined nor enumerated and which may      be believed   by  the employer to be misconduct ex post      facto  would expose the workman to a (1) [1984]1 S.C.R. 230. 560      penalty.  The  law will have to move two centuries back      ward   to accept  such a  construction. But  it is  not      necessary  to  go  so    far  because  in  Salem  Erode      Electricity  Distribution   Co.  Ltd.  v.  Salem  Erode      Electricity Distribution  Co. Ltd.  Employees Union,(1)      this Court   in   terms held that the object underlying      the Act   was   to  introduce  uniformity  of terms and      conditions of    employment    in  respect  of  workmen      belonging to  the same  category  and  discharging  the      same or similar work under an industrial establishment,      and that   these  terms and  conditions  of  industrial      employment   should be  well-established and  should be      known to  employees before  they accept the employment.      If such  is the  object, no  vague    undefined  notion      about  any  act,  may  be  innocuous,  which  from  the      employer’s point  of view  may be  misconduct  but  not      provided for  in the  standing   order    for  which  a      penalty can  be   imposed,   cannot  be incorporated in      the standing  orders. From  certainty of  conditions of      employment, we  would have  to return  to the  days  of      hire    and  fire  which  reverse  movement  is  hardly      justified. In  this  connection.  we  may also refer to      Western India Match Company  Ltd  v.Workmen(2) in which      this Court  held  that  any  condition  of  service  if      inconsistent with  certified standing  orders, the same      could not   prevail  and the  certified standing orders      would have  precedence  over all such agreements. There      is really  one   interesting observation  in this which      deserves noticing Says the Court:                  "In   the sunny  days of the market economy      theory  people sincerely  believed that the economy law      of demand  and supply   in  the   labour   market would      settle a   mutually   beneficial   bargain  between the      employer and  the workman  Such a bargain, they took it      for granted,  would secure fair terms and conditions of      employment to  the workman.  This law they venerated as      natural law.  They   had an abiding faith in the verity      of this  law. But  the experience  of the   working  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

    this law over a long period  has  belief  their faith."             Lastly we may refer to Workmen of Lakheri Cement Works (1) [1966] 2 S.C.R. 498. (2) [1974] 1 S.C.R. 434. 561      Ltd. Associated  Cement  Companies  Ltd(1)  This  Court      repelled the contention that the Act must prescribe the      minimum which  has to  be prescribed  in an  industrial      establishment, but  it does  not exclude  the extension      other wise.  Relying upon  the earlier decision of this      Court in  Rohtak Hissar District Electricity Supply Co.      Ltd. v.  State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors(2) the Court held      that everything which is required to be prescribed with      precision and  no  argument  can  be  entertained  that      something not  prescribed can yet be taken into account      as varying  what is  prescribed. In  short it cannot be      left to the vagaries of management to say ex post facto      that some  acts of omission or commission nowhere found      to be  enumerated in  the relevant  standing  order  is      none-the-less a  misconduct not strictly falling within      the enumerated  misconduct  in  the  relevant  standing      order but  yet a misconduct for the purpose of imposing      a penalty.  Accordingly, the  contention of  Mr. Shanti      Bhusan that  some other  act of  misconduct which would      per se be an act of misconduct though not enumerated in      S.O. 22 can be punished under S.O. 23 must be rejected.      It is  thus well-settled  that  unless  either  in  the Certified Standing  Order or  in the  service regulations an act or  omission is prescribed as misconduct, it is not open to the  employer to  fish out some conduct as misconduct and punish the  workman even though the alleged misconduct would not be comprehended in any of the enumerated misconduct.      The High Court fell into error when is observed that:      "The conduct  of  the  petitioner  in  suppressing  the      material facts  and misrepresenting  his  past  on  the      material aspect cannot be said to be a good conduct. On      the contrary  it is  unbecoming of  him that  he should      have deliberately  suppressed  the  material  fact  and      tried to  obtain employment  by deceiving the Municipal      Corporation. It is clearly a misconduct " After thus  holding that  the suppressio  very and suggestio false would  constitute misconduct, the High Court held even if it      (1) [1970] 20 Indian Factories & Labour Reports,  243.      (2) [1966] 2 S.C.R. 863. 562 does not  fall in any of the enumerated misconducts, yet for the purpose of service regulation, it would none-the-less be a misconduct  punishable as  such. We  are unable  to accept this view of law and it has to be rejected.      Having clearly  restated the  legal position, we reject this special leave petition. M.L.A.                                     Appeal dismissed. 563