Employment Law Alert - January - May 2022

• Published date: 07 July 2022
• Subject Matter: Employment and HR, Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Employee Benefits & Compensation, Trials & Appeals & Compensation
• Law Firm: Singhania & Partners LLP, Solicitors and Advocates
• Author: Singhania & Partners

The Supreme Court reiterates that acquittal in a criminal trial has no bearing on disciplinary proceedings.¹

Setting aside the orders passed by the Industrial Court and the Bombay High Court, the Supreme Court on 3rd January 2022 in the matter of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Dilip Uttam Jayabhay², through a two-judge Bench comprising Justice M.R. Shah and Justice B.V. Nagarthna refused to allow reinstatement with back wages of a driver engaged by the MSRTC, after he was dismissed from service following a departmental enquiry for rash and negligent driving.

Observation and decision:

Ruling in favour of the Appellant, the Apex Court held that the order of the Industrial Court is bad in law as the dismissal in the present case cannot be said to be disproportionate to the misconduct proved.

The driver was acquitted of charges U/s 279 and 304(a) IPC because the prosecution failed to prove that the incident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the accused. Hence, he is not absolved from the misconduct allegation.

The Court noted- "As per the cardinal principle of law an acquittal in a criminal trial has no bearing or relevance on the disciplinary proceedings as the standard of proof in both the cases are different and the proceedings operate in different fields and with different objectives."

In disciplinary proceedings, a delinquent employee has the legal right to appoint a Defence Assistant: MP HC³

A Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Deenbandhu Saket v. State of Madhya Pradesh⁴, allowed the petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by an employee facing disciplinary proceedings.

The Division Bench, comprising Sheel Nagu and Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, JJ held that the delinquent employee in a disciplinary proceeding has a statutory right under Rule 18(4) of M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, to engage a Defence Assistant for which the Disciplinary Authority/Inquiry Officer ought to assist the delinquent employee so that the requirement of reasonable opportunity of being heard is satisfied.

The Court accepted that "To take assistance of defence assistant, is a statutory right of delinquent employee, as per the provisions of Rule 14 of M.P. Civil C.C.A. Rules" and asked the Inquiry Officer to " request in writing to the Controlling Officer of the proposed defence assistance to act as defence assistant provided there is no other legal impediment."

The Court also agreed that the executive instructions issued by GAD, Govt. of M.P. appeared to be in consonance with the principles of natural justice. The order passed by the Inquiry Officer was quashed.

February

The Supreme Court ruled that an employee is not exempt from liability just because he has retired or superannuated.⁵

The Supreme Court on February 11, 2022 observed that merely because an employee stood superannuated, will not by itself absolve him from the misconduct committed at the time of discharge of his duties when he was in service.

The observation was made by a Division Bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S Oka in the case of United Bank of India v. Bachan Prasad Lal⁶ while dealing with an Appeal filed by United Bank of India against a 2010 Order of the Patna High Court upholding the decision of the Industrial Tribunal to reduce the punishment handed down to the Respondent-employee.

The facts of the Case were that the Respondent employee joined service as a Clerk' cum Typist in the year 1973 and while in service committed serious irregularities in the discharge of his duties, was placed under suspension by an Order dated 7th August 1995⁷.

He was later served with the Charge'sheet. After the disciplinary inquiry, the charges were proved. As a consequence, the Respondent was dismissed from service by an order dated December 06, 2000, and the Appellate Authority also rejected the Appeal preferred by the Respondent employee.

Subsequently, a Reference was made to the Industrial Tribunal for Adjudication by the appropriate government. The learned Tribunal held that the inquiry was fair and proper and the charges stood proved but while exercising power under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Tribunal substituted the punishment of dismissal with an order of reinstatement after lowering down of two stages in the basic salary that he was getting at the time of his dismissal. It was also held that there will be no payment of salary and allowances for the period of his suspension save and except payment of subsistence allowance.

In a Writ Petition before the Patna High Court, the Single Judge dismissed the Petition holding that the Tribunal has discretion under Section 11A of the Act of 1947 and held that...