Rajasthan High Court: When it comes to Livelihood of Employee ‘Fair Play’ must be a Factor While Imposing Punishment
Rajasthan High Court: When it comes to Livelihood of Employee ‘Fair Play’ must be a Factor While Imposing Punishment
The Rajasthan High Court while setting aside the penalty awarded to a Senior Manager of Punjab National Bank (PNB) in 2015 for being willfully absent for six months, observed that there must be fair play in all administrative decisions, particularly in the matter of imposing punishment, when it takes away the very livelihood of the Employee, which is not only going to affect him /her, but also affect his /her family members.
The single judge Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand labeled the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed on the employee as ‘harsh’ and directed to reinstate her forthwith without any back wages from the date of her compulsory retirement till reinstatement.
In the present case a petition was filed by the Employee of PNB who had challenged the compulsory retirement order of the Punjab National Bank imposed on the senior manager, who was transferred from Alwar to Jaipur branch in 2014.
The petitioner could not join the Alwar branch and she remained absent for about six months i.e., from April, 2014 to November, 2014. The petitioner argued that despite submitting multiple representations to reconsider her case and cancel her transfer to the Alwar Branch due to her family and medical circumstances, her requests were not accepted by PNB. Instead, she was repeatedly directed to join the Alwar branch.
Since she had failed to join the Alwar branch, the respondents issued a charge-sheet for her such conduct of unauthorized absence and after holding enquiry, the punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed on her.
The Court at the outset remarked that the scope of interference with decisions of the Disciplinary Authority is very narrow and limited in such matters, however, the High Court holds the powers of molding the relief in cases where the punishment/penalty-imposed shocks the judicial conscience.
The judge noted that the petitioner had submitted several applications for grant of Privilege Leave on medical grounds and medical certificates of the Medical Officers were also submitted. However, the same were not accepted by PNB and finally it was concluded that the petitioner remained willfully absent with effect from 30 April, 2014 till the date of issuing charge, it added.
In this regard, the Court stated that, “The principles of proportionality of punishment vis-a- vis misconduct have been recognized by the Courts of various European countries as well as British Courts. It has time and again been held that if the punishment imposed on an employee is out of proportion, the Court has power to interfere with the same.”
The Court while following the precedents set by Apex Court recognized the theory of proportionality of punishment and said that an order imposing punishment, which is shockingly disproportionate or is highly excessive having regard to the gravity of misconduct, is liable to be declared as arbitrary and thus violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
The Court while taking into consideration the interest of both the employee and the management while administering justice observed that there must be fair play in all administrative decisions, particularly in the matter of imposing punishment, when it takes away the very livelihood of the employee, which is not only going to affect him /her, but also affect his /her family members.
Furthermore, the Court noted the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, and noted the past /previous record of twenty-five years of unblemished service career of the petitioner and observed the fact that several Privilege Leave (P.L.) were there in account of the petitioner and she submitted several applications for grant of P.L. on medical grounds, and recorded the fact that the petitioner joined the transferred place of posting at Alwar Branch on 1 November, 2014 and remained posted and continued there till passing of her order of compulsory retirement, termed the punishment order as harsh.
Therefore, the Court set aside the order of termination and remitted the matter back to the appropriate authority for reconsideration on the question of punishment and directed it to pass appropriate orders within a period of three months.
