Supreme Court grants relief to Ministry of Steel Class-4 officer

Supreme Court grants relief to Ministry of Steel Class-4 officer

The bench ruled that no misconduct could be attributed to the respondent for availing the sanctioned leave.

The Supreme Court has criticized the Central government for imposing a penalty of dismissal from service for unauthorized absence from duty on a Grade-IV employee in the Ministry of Steel.

The bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice J. B. Pardiwala remarked, "Missing from duty is major misconduct in paramilitary forces or the army, but it is not so in civilian employment. It is not that he was handling some sensitive assignments where he compromised his duties. We agree that he had absented from duty, so retire him compulsorily, throw him out, do not keep him there, but allow his family to survive!"

The court recorded that the advocates for the appellants (the Government of India through the Ministry of Steel and the Director of the Ministry) pointed out that besides the absence period, the respondent-employee had on several occasions remained on casual/earned leave or other sanctioned leave also. But this leave was sanctioned by the officers who were not competent to do so.

However, the court asserted, "It remains a possibility that the respondent merely acted under the faith that the officers in question had the power to approve his request for leave. It is also undeniable that no action was taken against the officers who purportedly granted leave to the respondent despite not being competent to sanction the same."

The court admonished Additional Solicitor General Jayant Sud and Senior Advocate R. Balasubramanian, appearing for the appellants, "The big fish are not caught and you are after the blood of the small-level employee. Did you take action against the under-secretary or the section officer who granted the leave in excess of their powers?"

In its order, the court declared that no misconduct could be attributed to the respondent for availing of the sanctioned leave. It added, "The punishment of dismissal from the service is too harsh, disproportionate and not commensurate with the nature of the charge proved against the respondent. The ends of justice would have been adequately met by imposing some lesser but major penalty upon the respondent."

Invoking its powers under Article 142, the court upheld the setting aside of the dismissal order and directed the ministry to reinstate the respondent-employee in service.

The bench ruled that he would be deemed to have remained in service till the completion of the minimum 'qualifying service' of 20 years to earn a pension and other retiral benefits. Also, he would be deemed to have been 'compulsorily retired from service' with entitlement to pension, gratuity and other retiral benefits on completion of his service.