Relief granted by Supreme Court to an Employee

While observing that ‘missing from duty is a major misconduct in forces or the army, but not so in the case of civilian employment’, the Supreme Court criticized the decision of the central government in which a grade IV employee was dismissed for his unauthorized absence from duty by the Ministry of Steel. 

Facts of the Case-

• The advocate for the appellants, i.e. the UOI through the Ministry of Steel and the Director of the said Ministry, informed the court, that besides being absent from the duty, the respondent on several occasions had remained on casual/earned leave. And such leaves or sanctioned leaves were granted by officers who had no authority to do so.
• However, the Court observed that the appellants have not proved that such absence was willful. The Court was of the opinion that it could be possible that the respondent was under the faith that such officer had the authority to grant such leave.
• It was also noticed by the court that no action was taken against the officers who allowed such leave while having no authority to do so.
• The charges during his dismissal on the employee were as follows-

• That the respondent remained absent continuously from his duty for the periods from [09-02-1998 to 23-03-1998] and [24-03-1998 to 23-05-1998].
• That the employee did not receive a letter sent to him through a registered post, and thus he kept the office in the dark about his residential address.
• From the period between 1993- 98, the employee remained absent continuously from duty without any prior intimation.
• That the employee was not loyal towards his duty by keeping himself in absence continuously without prior sanction of leave

Judgment

• The Court asked the advocates for the appellants that “the big fish are not caught and you are after the blood of the small-level employee….Did you take action against the undersecretary or the Section Officer who granted the leave in excess of their powers?” 
• The Court declared that there was no evidence of any misbehavior on the part of the respondent at the times he took advantage of the leave or other authorized leaves. Considering the time the respondent was away from work, the Court stated that it believed the employee’s dismissal from the company was “too harsh, disproportionate, and not commensurate with the nature of the charge proved against the respondent” and that “the ends of justice would have been adequately met by imposing some lesser but major penalty upon the respondent.”
• While invoking its power under Article 142, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of setting aside the dismissal order of the employee and also directed the Ministry of Steel to reinstate the said employee.
• The Bench also observed that the employee would have remained in the services for the minimum qualifying period of 20 years to earn pension and other government benefits provided  to the retired employees.

Lead India provides a team of advocates who have years long experience in dealing with cases involving criminal issues, civil suits, cases related to family law including divorce, separation, custody for children, etc. If you are in confusion regarding the proper legal action you should take, you can contact us for any legal advice or guidance.