The Supreme Court has held that reimbursement of monetary loss doesn't mitigate misconduct on part of person.
The Division Bench of Justice MR Shah and Justice BV Nagarathna in this view allowed appeal against CAT's decision wherein punishment of an employee was modified from dismissal/removal from service to compulsory retirement.
The respondent during his service from 2004-07 as Postal Assistant committed fraud of ₹16,59,065/-. The fraud came to light and enquiries were made based on the report of Postmaster. When the respondent couldn't escape the allegations and enquiries, he submitted a sum of ₹18,09,041/- (fraud amount+ interest).
A departmental enquiry was initiated against the respondent vide office memorandum ans six charges were framed. He admitted fraud in his defence representation and consequently all charges stood proved.
Later, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of ‘removal’ from service having found that the offence committed was grave in nature and retention of such person in the department would further hamper the services rendered to the public. Appeal against the same was dismissed.
When the issue was brought up to the Tribunal, it modified the order of punishment from ‘removal’ from service to that of compulsory retirement on sympathetic ground by observing that as such the delinquent officer himself deposited the entire amount involved and therefore no loss has been caused to the department. It also noted that the delinquent officer had completed nearly 39 years of service and has not suffered any other punishment other than the present one.
The High Court dismissed the Department's writ petition, hence the present appeal.
Supreme Court's Analysis
Learned ASG submitted that the Tribunal as well as the High Court have committed a grave error in interfering with the order of punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. He submitted that both ofg them have shown undue sympathy to the delinquent officer who committed the fraud and defrauded the huge sum. He urged that merely because the delinquent officer worked for 39 years and the present one was the first misconduct and that the entire amount was deposited cannot be grounds to interfere with the conscious decision taken by the Disciplinary Authority to remove the delinquent officer from service. Relian was placed on B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India & Ors, 1995 Latest Caselaw 598 SC, Chairman & Md V.S.P. & Ors Vs. Goparaju Sri Prabhakara Hari Babu, 2008 Latest Caselaw 251 SC, M/S Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs. Ram Lal & Ors, 2005 Latest Caselaw 57 SC , State of Bihar & Ors Vs. Amrendra Kumar Mishra, 2006 Latest Caselaw 620 SC, Regional Manager, Sbi. Vs. Mahatma Mishra, 2006 Latest Caselaw 736 SC, State of Karnataka & Ors Vs. Ameerbi & Ors, 2006 Latest Caselaw 858 SC,
The Court threw light on judicial review and the limited jurisdiction of the High Court on the proportionality of the order of departmental authority and referred to Chairman & Md V.S.P. & Ors Vs. Goparaju Sri Prabhakara Hari Babu, 2008 Latest Caselaw 251 SC wherein it was held that High Court cannot set aside a well-reasoned order only on grounds of sympathy and sentiments. It is further observed and held that once it is found that all the procedural requirements had been complied with, courts would not ordinarily interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed upon a delinquent employee. It is further observed that the superior courts, only in some cases may invoke the doctrine of proportionality, however if the decision of an employer is found to be within the legal parameters, the doctrine would ordinarily not be invoked when the misconduct stands proved.
In this view, the Court held that reasoning of High Court in the present matter is wholly unsupportable. Such reasons are not relevant or germane to modify the punishment and what is required to be considered is the gravity of the misconduct, it concluded.
Appeal was allowed, impugned order was accordingly set aside.
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com:
Share this Document :Picture Source :
