it2025_00339 — Punishment of dismissal from service in the absence of criminal charges especially a few days left before retirement is exorbitant and shocks the conscience of court. In this case, the charged officer was negligent as against being an active participant in colluding against his employer. Hence his dismissal order just six days prior to his retirement is disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct. Further, the Appellant herein had taken steps to retrieve the materials which were due against bi

IT Rules

Punishment of dismissal from service in the absence of criminal charges especially a few days left before retirement is exorbitant and shocks the conscience of court. In this case, the charged officer was negligent as against being an active participant in colluding against his employer. Hence his dismissal order just six days prior to his retirement is disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct. Further, the Appellant herein had taken steps to retrieve the materials which were due against bills from supplier which had rectified the error. Hence cut of one year's increment was imposed by Apex Court — This chunk contains the summary of the judgment in the case Girish Bhushan Goyal v. BHEL and others, where the dismissal order against the appellant was found to be disproportionate to his misconduct... — Facts : The Appellant herein joined BHEL (Respondent company) in 1970 and rose to the post of Deputy General Manager (DGM) and is to retire on 24-3-2009. Just four months prior to his retirement, he was issued with a charge- sheet for his negligence which was accepted by him but he said his superiors as well as his subordinates were also equally responsible as they were also part of chain system. The Appellant further stated that during his routine verification of the stock in the canteen in July-August 2008, he found major discrepancies in the stock of tea leaves and milk powder. He prepared physical check of store and submitted a report of shortage on 30-8-2008. The Appellant thereafter issued a notice to one Shri Rana, in-charge of canteen operation on 10-9-2008. As no reply was received from canteen-in-charge, the Appellant brought these shortages to the notice of his superiors. The supplier of tea leaves and milk powder, namely "Gupta and Company" admitted the discrepancy in supply and offered to make good the shortage. In spite of the above development, a notice was issued to the Applicant, six days prior to his retirement for termination of the service. The Applicant submitted that the shortage amounting to ₹ 35 lakhs is not mentioned by Enquiry Officer. No charges of embezzlement of misappropriation by the Appellant has been levelled against him. The term "irregularity" mentioned in the enquiry report converted to the term "malpractice" in the termination order served on him, without any reason. The bona fide mistake is termed as malicious act on his part for extraneous reasons. His superiors who were also responsible for the alleged discrepancy were left out of accusation. Further his juniors were awarded only a minor punishment against major penalty awarded to him. As he is left out only six days before punishment, negating his pensionary benefits is severe. The High Court on his appeal held that he did not raise the issue to treat him as whistleblower. Even if he raised that, the Appellant is aware of the financial gain by the canteen authorities thereby depriving the Respondent organization. Nothing is shown by the Appellant to protect the interest of his employer. As non- charging of others concerned, the Appellant did not raise the issue in the enquiry stage. In view of the above position, the Apex Court considered the following issues:-
(i) whether the High Court was right in dismissing the appeal filed by the Appellant against the order of dismissal served on him by the Respondent company.
(ii) whether the Appellant is entitled to the pensionary and other monetary benefits which accrued to him against the service provided by him to the Respondent company.
(iii) To what relief is the Appellant entitled to℃ Part (i): The Appellant is charged for his negligence under Rules 5 (5) and 5 (9) of the BHEL Conduct Rules. The enquiry report in this connection states that the irregularities against the Appellant proves his complicity beyond any shadow of doubt in the affair of the canteen operations. The Appellant accepted that he was negligent by placing reliance upon his subordinates operating in a three-tier systems of checking and verification. Thus the charges under Rules 5 (5) and (9) as above is proved. Hence the conduct of the Appellant amounts to misconduct to attract major penalties to be imposed on him under Rule 25 of the BHEL Conduct Rules. Rule 25 of BHEL Conduct Rules is reproduced. As per this rule, conduct which lends itself to both criminal prosecution as well as disciplinary action notwithstanding that a criminal case against the employee in respect of same conduct is under investigation of trial. Rule 23 (1) of the BHEL order of dismissal, dated 18-3-2009 is covered under Rule 23 (1) of BHEL Conduct Rules. However, the order of termination does not mention any form of criminal charges to attract penalty under Rule 23 (1) of Conduct Rules of BHEL amounting to dismissal from service. The charges levelled against the Applicant does not state that he is a active participant colluding with employees against the interest of the company. "The consequence of results in inflicting disproportionate punishment on him in terms of bad name and reputation, but also deprives the Appellant of his retiral benefits for which he has got statutory entitlement for rendering three decades of service to the company where his negligence attracts minor penalty under Rule 23 of the BHEL Conduct Rules". In the reported case of Surendra Prasad Shukla v. State of Jharkhand [ 2011 (2) SCC (L&S) 372 ], it was opinioned that "the punishment of dismissal of the Appellant from service so as to deprive him of his pension for the service that he had rendered for 34 long years was shockingly disproportionate to the negligence proved against him". Para. 9 of the above judgment is reproduced verbatim in the present judgment.

IT Rules

Punishment of dismissal from service in the absence of criminal charges especially a few days left before retirement is exorbitant and shocks the conscience of court. In this case, the charged officer was negligent as against being an active participant in colluding against his employer. Hence his dismissal order just six days prior to his retirement is disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct. Further, the Appellant herein had taken steps to retrieve the materials which were due against bills from supplier which had rectified the error. Hence cut of one year's increment was imposed by Apex Court — This chunk contains the summary of the judgment in the case Girish Bhushan Goyal v. BHEL and others, where the dismissal order against the appellant was found to be disproportionate to his misconduct... — Facts : The Appellant herein joined BHEL (Respondent company) in 1970 and rose to the post of Deputy General Manager (DGM) and is to retire on 24-3-2009. Just four months prior to his retirement, he was issued with a charge- sheet for his negligence which was accepted by him but he said his superiors as well as his subordinates were also equally responsible as they were also part of chain system. The Appellant further stated that during his routine verification of the stock in the canteen in July-August 2008, he found major discrepancies in the stock of tea leaves and milk powder. He prepared physical check of store and submitted a report of shortage on 30-8-2008. The Appellant thereafter issued a notice to one Shri Rana, in-charge of canteen operation on 10-9-2008. As no reply was received from canteen-in-charge, the Appellant brought these shortages to the notice of his superiors. The supplier of tea leaves and milk powder, namely "Gupta and Company" admitted the discrepancy in supply and offered to make good the shortage. In spite of the above development, a notice was issued to the Applicant, six days prior to his retirement for termination of the service. The Applicant submitted that the shortage amounting to ₹ 35 lakhs is not mentioned by Enquiry Officer. No charges of embezzlement of misappropriation by the Appellant has been levelled against him. The term "irregularity" mentioned in the enquiry report converted to the term "malpractice" in the termination order served on him, without any reason. The bona fide mistake is termed as malicious act on his part for extraneous reasons. His superiors who were also responsible for the alleged discrepancy were left out of accusation. Further his juniors were awarded only a minor punishment against major penalty awarded to him. As he is left out only six days before punishment, negating his pensionary benefits is severe. The High Court on his appeal held that he did not raise the issue to treat him as whistleblower. Even if he raised that, the Appellant is aware of the financial gain by the canteen authorities thereby depriving the Respondent organization. Nothing is shown by the Appellant to protect the interest of his employer. As non- charging of others concerned, the Appellant did not raise the issue in the enquiry stage. In view of the above position, the Apex Court considered the following issues:-
(i) whether the High Court was right in dismissing the appeal filed by the Appellant against the order of dismissal served on him by the Respondent company.
(ii) whether the Appellant is entitled to the pensionary and other monetary benefits which accrued to him against the service provided by him to the Respondent company.
(iii) To what relief is the Appellant entitled to℃ Part (i): The Appellant is charged for his negligence under Rules 5 (5) and 5 (9) of the BHEL Conduct Rules. The enquiry report in this connection states that the irregularities against the Appellant proves his complicity beyond any shadow of doubt in the affair of the canteen operations. The Appellant accepted that he was negligent by placing reliance upon his subordinates operating in a three-tier systems of checking and verification. Thus the charges under Rules 5 (5) and (9) as above is proved. Hence the conduct of the Appellant amounts to misconduct to attract major penalties to be imposed on him under Rule 25 of the BHEL Conduct Rules. Rule 25 of BHEL Conduct Rules is reproduced. As per this rule, conduct which lends itself to both criminal prosecution as well as disciplinary action notwithstanding that a criminal case against the employee in respect of same conduct is under investigation of trial. Rule 23 (1) of the BHEL order of dismissal, dated 18-3-2009 is covered under Rule 23 (1) of BHEL Conduct Rules. However, the order of termination does not mention any form of criminal charges to attract penalty under Rule 23 (1) of Conduct Rules of BHEL amounting to dismissal from service. The charges levelled against the Applicant does not state that he is a active participant colluding with employees against the interest of the company. "The consequence of results in inflicting disproportionate punishment on him in terms of bad name and reputation, but also deprives the Appellant of his retiral benefits for which he has got statutory entitlement for rendering three decades of service to the company where his negligence attracts minor penalty under Rule 23 of the BHEL Conduct Rules". In the reported case of Surendra Prasad Shukla v. State of Jharkhand [ 2011 (2) SCC (L&S) 372 ], it was opinioned that "the punishment of dismissal of the Appellant from service so as to deprive him of his pension for the service that he had rendered for 34 long years was shockingly disproportionate to the negligence proved against him". Para. 9 of the above judgment is reproduced verbatim in the present judgment.

Original Rule Text

Original Rule Text