Recently, the Madras High Court examined an appeal challenging the dismissal of a Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation conductor accused of threatening and abusing his Branch Manager, with questions raised about the proportionality of punishment and alleged trade union victimisation.
Brief Facts:
The case arose from the dismissal of a Conductor employed with the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation. The employee was charged with trespassing into the cabin of the Branch Manager, using abusive language, threatening him, and attempting to assault him. Following a domestic enquiry, the charges were found proved, and a dismissal order was issued. The workman challenged his dismissal before the Labour Court, which confirmed the punishment by its Award. His Writ Petition challenging the Award was dismissed by a Single Judge of the Madras High Court. The employee having died during the proceedings, his widow, filed this Writ Appeal challenging the dismissal order.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The counsel for the Appellant argued that the writ petitioner, being the Secretary of a Trade Union affiliated to the Labour Progressive Union, was victimized due to his trade union activities. It was contended that the charges were not supported by legal and acceptable evidence and that the punishment of dismissal was harsh and disproportionate. The Appellant maintained that the alleged act of abusing and threatening the Manager did not justify termination from service. Reliance was placed on Rama Kant Misra v. State of U.P. and Ved Prakash Gupta v. Delton Cable India (P) Ltd, wherein the Supreme Court held that dismissal for isolated acts of misconduct was disproportionate. The Appellant urged reinstatement of the deceased employee with consequential monetary benefits.
Contentions of the Respondents:
The counsel for the Respondent opposed the appeal, asserting that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and that the petitioner had been given ample opportunity, including a second show cause notice to which he failed to respond. It was argued that the plea of violation of natural justice was baseless, as no prejudice had been shown to have been caused by non-furnishing of the enquiry report. The Respondent pointed out that the petitioner had a history of similar misconduct, including prior instances of abusing and threatening the Branch Manager, for which he had been punished earlier with increments cut. Hence, the dismissal was justified. The counsel for the Respondent further cited M.P. Electricity Board v. Jagdish Chandra Sharma and Haryana Financial Corporation v. Kailash Chandra Ahuja to support the principle that interference with punishment is unwarranted when misconduct is established and no prejudice is proved.
Observations of the Court:
The Division Bench comprising Justice C.V. Karthikeyan and Justice R. Vijayakumar, emphasized a detailed examination of the facts, evidence, and arguments advanced by both sides. The Court observed that the case did not warrant interference, as the punishment imposed was proportionate to the nature of the misconduct and the petitioner’s past record.
The Bench first distinguished the precedents relied upon by the Appellant, noting that in those cases the misconduct was a single, isolated incident and the workmen had unblemished past records. In contrast, the Appellant in the present case had multiple prior instances of similar misconduct.
The Court observed that “We are constrained to point out a significant distinguishing factor. In both the cases referred supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court noted that the charge of misconduct was a solitary, stray allegation. The prior conduct of the workmen in those cases was unblemished. It was on that basis that the Hon’ble Supreme Court concluded that the punishment of dismissal from service was disproportionate.”
The Bench then emphasised that the petitioner’s record showed repeated instances of indiscipline and abuse toward the Branch Manager “In the instant case, however, the writ petitioner had been charged with similar offences of misconduct against the Branch Manager on two earlier separate occasions, for which he was punished with a cut in increment for one year without cumulative effect on both occasions. Additionally, there were two other earlier instances wherein the petitioner was charged with remitting a shortage of the amount collected while performing his duties as a Conductor.”
The Court stressed that the Labour Court had already examined the proportionality of punishment and found it justified. “The compelling circumstance of previous misconduct of similar nature on two occasions necessarily had to be taken into account by the second respondent when determining the appropriate punishment for the repeated offences involving abusive and threatening conduct against the Branch Manager.”
The Bench categorically held that the punishment of dismissal could not be said to be excessive “We are of the firm view that the punishment imposed was certainly not disproportionate, particularly, when taking into consideration the past disciplinary record of the writ petitioner. Specifically, there were prior occasions of similar misconduct of threatening and abusing the Branch Manager, each resulting in punishment being imposed of cut in increment for one year without cumulative effect. The petitioner may be described as having a proclivity for threatening and abusing the Branch Manager, which reflects direct insubordination and extreme disrespect towards an officer holding a managerial position.”
Rejecting the argument of victimisation on trade union grounds, the Court observed that “The contention that the writ petitioner was victimised due to his membership in a Trade Union must be rejected. Being a member or office bearer of a Trade Union does not entitle him to abuse and threaten the Branch Manager on not one or two, but on three separate occasions.” Finally, the Court concluded that the disciplinary action was justified and proportionate.
The decision of the Court:
The Court dismissed the writ appeal, upholding the employee’s dismissal. The Court held that the punishment was justified given his repeated misconduct and prior disciplinary record, and found no violation of natural justice or reason to interfere with the lower court’s decisions.
Case Title: A. Shanthi vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
Case No.: W.A.(MD)No.457 of 2020
Coram: Hon’ble Mr Justice R. Vijayakumar and Hon’ble Mr Justice C.V. Karthikeyan
Counsel for the Appellant: Adv. V. Ajay Khose and Adv. A. Rahul
Counsel for the Respondent: GA V.Om Prakash and Adv. P. Balasubramanian
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
