LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the punishment of removal from service for unauthorized absence is disproportionate. CASE TYPE: Service Law. Case Name: Government of India & Ors. vs. V. Shanmugananthan. Judgment Date: 25 October 2018.
Introduction
Date of the Judgment: 25 October 2018. Citation: Not Available. Judges: Justice N.V. Ramana and Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar. The Supreme Court of India addressed the question of whether a punishment of “removal from service” was too harsh for an employee of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) who failed to report for duty after a transfer. The core issue revolved around the proportionality of the disciplinary action taken against the employee, considering his reasons for not joining and the subsequent procedural lapses. The bench consisted of Justice N.V. Ramana and Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar.
Case Background
The case began with the transfer of V. Shanmugananthan, an Inspector in the CISF, from New Delhi to Oil Duliajan (Assam) in December 1993. He was supposed to report to the new location on 28th December 1993. However, he did not join his new post after being relieved from his previous posting on 13th December 1993. He remained absent for 2 years and 4 months. A charge memorandum was issued to him on 21st August 1995 for unauthorized absence. The respondent claimed that he could not report for duty due to an accident he suffered in Delhi on 6th December 1993.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| December 1993 | V. Shanmugananthan transferred from New Delhi to Oil Duliajan, Assam. |
| 13 December 1993 | V. Shanmugananthan was relieved from his post in New Delhi. |
| 28 December 1993 | V. Shanmugananthan was required to report at CISF Unit, Oil Duliajan. |
| 06 December 1993 | V. Shanmugananthan claims to have met with an accident in Delhi. |
| 30 May 1994 | Call-up notice sent to V. Shanmugananthan. |
| 21 August 1995 | Charge memorandum issued to V. Shanmugananthan under Rule 34 of CISF Rules, 1969 for unauthorized absence. |
| 20 October 1995 | V. Shanmugananthan submitted his representation and pleaded not guilty. |
| 31 July 1997 | Disciplinary authority exonerated V. Shanmugananthan. |
| 13 August 2000 | DIG, CISF, Oil Duliajan, reviewed the order and imposed a penalty of withholding one increment for 3 years. |
| 2 February 2000 | Disciplinary Authority awarded penalty of “removal from service” to V. Shanmugananthan. |
| 8 May 2000 | Appellate Authority confirmed the removal from service. |
| 24 May 2001 | Revisional Authority confirmed the removal from service. |
| 19 January 2007 | Madras High Court partly allowed the appeal, quashing the punishment but denying back wages. |
| 10 May 2007 | A Special Leave Petition was filed before the Supreme Court against the Madras High Court judgment. |
| 7/8 June 2007 | Letter issued by the appellants stating that V. Shanmugananthan cannot be reinstated due to the SLP. |
| 2010 | V. Shanmugananthan superannuated. |
| 25 October 2018 | Supreme Court modified the punishment to compulsory retirement. |
Course of Proceedings
Initially, the disciplinary authority exonerated the respondent on 31st July 1997. However, this order was reviewed by DIG, CISF, Oil Duliajan, on 13th August 2000, who imposed a penalty of withholding one increment for 3 years. The respondent appealed, and the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, set aside the review and ordered a de novo enquiry due to discrepancies in medical papers. During this de novo enquiry, the Disciplinary Authority imposed a penalty of “removal from service” on 2nd February 2000, which was confirmed by the Appellate Authority on 8th May 2000 and Revisional Authority on 24th May 2001. The Madras High Court partly allowed the writ petition, quashing the punishment as disproportionate but denying back wages. The Supreme Court was approached against the order of the High Court.
Legal Framework
The charge memorandum was issued under Rule 34 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 1969. The rule was not reproduced in the judgment. The core issue revolved around the proportionality of the punishment imposed on the respondent.
Arguments
The arguments presented by both sides were not explicitly detailed in the judgment. However, it can be inferred that:
- The respondent argued that his absence was due to an accident and that the punishment of removal from service was disproportionate.
- The appellants contended that the respondent’s absence was unauthorized and that the disciplinary action was justified.
The respondent’s primary contention was that his inability to report for duty was due to an accident, which was not considered adequately during the disciplinary proceedings. The appellants, on the other hand, likely argued that the respondent’s prolonged absence, despite being notified, warranted the punishment imposed.
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues. However, the core issue before the court was whether the punishment of “removal from service” was disproportionate to the misconduct of unauthorized absence, especially considering the circumstances and the procedural history of the case.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | Court’s Decision |
|---|---|
| Whether the punishment of “removal from service” was disproportionate? | The Court modified the punishment to “compulsory retirement” considering the circumstances and the procedural history of the case. |
Authorities
No authorities were mentioned in the judgment.
Judgment
The Supreme Court modified the punishment of “removal from service” to “compulsory retirement from service”. The Court held that the respondent was entitled to retiral benefits from 7th/8th June 2007, the date when the appellants refused to reinstate him due to the pending proceedings before the Supreme Court.
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Respondent’s submission that the punishment was disproportionate. | Partially accepted. The Court found the punishment of removal to be excessive and modified it to compulsory retirement. |
| Appellants’ submission that the disciplinary action was justified. | Partially rejected. The Court did not find the removal to be justified and modified it to compulsory retirement. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
No authorities were mentioned in the judgment.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the following factors:
- The fact that the respondent’s absence was due to an accident, although not conclusively proven, was a mitigating factor.
- The procedural lapses in the disciplinary proceedings, including the initial exoneration and subsequent review, indicated that the punishment of “removal from service” was too harsh.
- The respondent was not reinstated due to the pendency of the proceedings before the Supreme Court.
The Court’s decision was driven by a sense of fairness and proportionality, balancing the misconduct of unauthorized absence with the mitigating circumstances and procedural irregularities. The Court aimed to provide relief to the respondent while upholding the principles of disciplinary action.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Mitigating Circumstances (Accident) | 30% |
| Procedural Lapses | 40% |
| Non-Reinstatement | 30% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 40% |
| Law | 60% |
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court emphasized the need for proportionality in disciplinary actions.
- Mitigating circumstances and procedural lapses must be considered while deciding on the quantum of punishment.
- Employees are entitled to retiral benefits if they are not reinstated due to the pendency of legal proceedings.
- The punishment of removal from service should be reserved for the most egregious cases of misconduct.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed that the punishment of removal from service be substituted with compulsory retirement from service. The respondent was held entitled to retiral benefits from 7th/8th June 2007.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the punishment should be proportionate to the misconduct. The Supreme Court modified the punishment of removal from service to compulsory retirement, emphasizing the need for proportionality in disciplinary actions and considering the specific facts and circumstances of the case. This case highlights the principle that disciplinary actions must be fair and just, taking into account all relevant factors.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in the case of *Government of India & Ors. vs. V. Shanmugananthan* modified the punishment of removal from service to compulsory retirement, providing relief to the respondent while upholding the principles of disciplinary action. The Court emphasized the need for proportionality in disciplinary actions and considered the mitigating circumstances and procedural lapses in the case.