Holding

When a termination order on misconduct is set aside, the employer must initiate regular departmental disciplinary proceedings; the Probation of Offenders Act does not preclude such action, and delay alone is not a bar.

Summary

The Punjab Water Supply Sewerage Board terminated two work‑charge employees after they assaulted a senior officer following a disputed transfer. The employees were convicted in a criminal case, but the Labour Court set aside the termination and ordered reinstatement without back wages. The Board later issued a show‑cause notice and again terminated the employees for misconduct; the High Court released them on probation. The Supreme Court held that when a termination order on misconduct is set aside, the employer must initiate regular departmental disciplinary proceedings, and the Probation of Offenders Act does not bar such action. The Court further ruled that a long delay does not, by itself, preclude the initiation of disciplinary proceedings, and that conviction alone is not sufficient for dismissal without a departmental inquiry. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, permitting the Board to proceed with disciplinary action against the employees.

Issues considered

The effect of a termination order set aside by a Labour Court on the employer's power to initiate departmental disciplinary proceedings.
Whether the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (Section 12) shields an employee from disciplinary action after being released on probation.
Whether the passage of time bars the employer from initiating a fresh departmental inquiry.
The scope of Rule 14(i) of the 1968 Rules concerning the term "consider" in disciplinary proceedings.

Legislation cited

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958s. 12, s. 3, s. 4

Subjects

Industrial DisputesTermination of serviceMisconductProbation of Offenders ActDisciplinary proceedingsDepartmental inquiryConvictionAssaultReinstatementDelay

Judgment

...
A PUNJAB WATER SUPPLY SEWERAGE BOARD AND ANR. f
v.
RAM SAJIVAN AND ANR.

APRIL 26, 2007

B [S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KATJU, JJ.]

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Employees on work charge basis-
Conviction for assaulting senior officer-Termination of service-Re- "
instatement in service by labour court pursuant whereto employee joining
c service-Conviction upheld by appellate court-Subsequently, termination
for misconduct-Direction by High Court to be released on probation-In
writ petition, High Court directing re-instatement-Correctness of-Held:
When termination order passed on the ground ofmisconduct set aside resulting
in re-instatement, employer was required to take action against employees
D by initiation of regular departmental proceedings-Long delay not a sufficient
ground for not initiating departmental proceeding-Also, indiscipline at
work place is to be considered seriously-Thus, employer granted liberty to ~
initiate disciplinary proceedings against employees.

Respondents-employee on work charge basis opposed transfer order of
E a workman. Since the transfer order was not cancelled despite protest they
assaulted a senior officer. Trial court found them guilty in a criminal case
and convicted them. Their services were terminated. Respondent raised an
Industrial Dispute. Labour Court directed reinstatement in service with
continuity in service without back wages. Appellant-employer filed writ petition
F which was dismissed whereupon respondent joined the services. Appellate
Court upheld the conviction. Thereafter, show cause notice was issued to
respondent as to why his service should not be terminated. Respondent filed
their show cause. Termination order was passed on the charges of misconduct.
Respondent fded revision application. High Court directed them to be released
on probation. Respondent then filed writ petition which was disposed of
G directing the petitioner to decide the representation. Representation filed, was
dismissed. However, writ petition was allowed. Hence, the present appeal. ~- ~

Allowing the appeal, the Court

684
H
PUNJAB WATER SUPPLY SEWERAGE BOARD v. RAM SAJIVAN 685

..
" '
HELD: 1.1. In absence of any statutory rule operating in the field, the
services of an employee cannot be terminated only because he was found guilty
of commission of any offence irrespective of the fact whether the same involved
A

any moral turpitude on his part, but it would be a different thing to say that
an order made under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, would
by itself be sufficient to arrive at a conclusion that despite commission of a
grave act of indiscipline, no disciplinary proceeding should be initiated. B
[Para 10] [688-D, E[

1 1.2. It is, however, one thing to say that prior to passing of the order of
'
termination, a disciplinary proceeding should have been initiated, but it is
another thing to say as has been stated by the High Court that only because
the respondents were let off on probation, the same should not affect his
c
service career at all. [Para 15] [692-G-HJ

1.3. When the order of termination passed by the appellant on the ground
of misconduct was set aside by the Labour Court, the only course open to it
was to initiate a regular departmental proceedings. Once they had terminated D
the services of the respondent, during pendency of the criminal case which
was set aside resulting in their re-instatement in services, which although
) ~
did not preclude the appellant from taking further action against the
respondents, the same was required to be done only in terms of the extent
rule i.e. by initiation of a regular departmental proceedings.
[Para 19] [693-G; 694-A, B] E

1.4. The submission of respondent that owing to passage of time, this
Court would refrain itself from permitting the appellant to initiate a full
fledged departmental proceeding at this stage, does not appear to be correct.
There are cases and cases. Factor taking into consideration for issuing such
-A
a direction would be different depending upon the factual matrix involved in
F
each case. Indiscipline at the work place has been considered by this Court
seriously particularly when the misconduct alleged is physical assault of a
higher authority. The nature of assault, the role played by the concerned
workman and the question as to whether with the passage of time any
proceeding should be initiated or not plays an important role and as such does G
....... not merit laying down a general law in this behalf. [Para 20) [694-B, C, DJ

1.5. The instant case is not one where the gravity of the offence can be
ignored. It is also not a case where the respondents have pleaded prejudice or
brought sufficient materials on records so as to enable this Court to arrive
at a finding that no evidence would be available. If departmental proceeding is H
686 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 5 S.C.R.

A directed to be initiated then Respondent would not be in a position to adduce '· '
,
any evidence in support of defence, because of passage of time. The interest
of justice would be met if liberty is granted to the appellant to initiate a
disciplinary proceedings against the respondent whereafter the appellants may
pass appropriate order in accordance with law.
(Paras 24 and 25) (695-G, H; 696-A, BJ
B
Union ofIndia and Ors. v. Bakshi Ram, [1990) 2 SCC 426; The Division
Personnel Officer, Southern Railway and Anr. v. T.R. Chellappan etc., (1976) ,.
3 SCC 190; Arvind Mohan Sinha v. Amulya Kumar Biswas and Ors., [1974)
4 SCC 222; Hansa v. State of Punjab, [1977) 3 SCC 575; Union ofIndia and

-
Anr. v. Tulsiram Patel etc., (1985) 3 SCC 398; Aitha Chander Rao v. State of
c Andhra Pradesh, [1981) Supp SCC 17; Hari Chand v. Director of School
Education, [1998) 2 SCC 383; Muriadih Colliery of Bharat Coking Coal
Ltd v. Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union Through Workmen, (2005) 3 SCC 331;
Krishnakali Tea Estate v. Akhil Bharatiya Chah Mazdoor Sangh and Anr.,
(2004) 8 SCC 200; Hombe Gouda Educational Trust and Anr. v. State of
D Karnataka and Ors., (2006) 1 SCC 430; Harjit Singh & Anr. v. The State of
Punjab & Anr., (2007) 3 SCALE 553; P.D. Agarwal v. State Bank ofIndia &
Ors., (2006) 5 SCALE 54 and M V. Bijlani v. Union ofIndia, [2006) 5 SCC 88, >. .
referred to.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2164 of2007.
E
From the Final Judgment and Order dated 26.05.2005 of the High Court
of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No. 12762 of 2002.

WITH

F C.A. No. 2165 of2007. t..

Vijay Kaushal and Dr. Kailash Chand for the Appellants.

Nidhesh Gupta,) Vinod Shukla and S. Janani for the Respondents.

G The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

S.B. SINHA, J. I. Leave granted.

2. These two appeals by special leave involving common question of
law and fact were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of
H by a common judgment. Respondents herein were employed on work charge
PUNJAB WATER SUPPLY SEWERAGE BOARD v. RAM SAJIVAN [S.B. SINHA, J.) 687
basis. One of the workman was transferred. Respondents were opposing the A
Ill said order of transfer. They allegedly assaulted one of their senior officers as
the said order of transfer despite protests was not cancelled. A First Information
Report was lodged. Their services were terminated on 8.8.1994. They were
found guilty in the criminal case and were convicted by the learned Trial
Judge by an order dated 29 .4.2000. They preferred an appeal thereagainst.
However, an industrial dispute was raised questioning the said order of B
termination. The said dispute was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication
by the State Government. By an Award, re-instatement of the respondents
,; was directed by the said Court with continuity of service but without back
wages. A Writ Petition preferred thereagainst by the appellant was dismissed
by the High Court by an Order dated 22.11.2000, whereupon the respondent c
joined his services. In the meanwhile, an appeal preferred by the respor.dent
was also dismissed by an Order dated 17.4.2001 by the appellate court. A
show cause notice was issued as to why their services should not be terminated
in view of the judgment of conviction having been upheld by the learned
Additional District Judge. Respondents filed their show cause whereafter an
order terminating their services on the charges of misconduct was passed on D
6.8.2001. On are visional application filed by the respondents, the High Court
> .. by a Judgment dated 24.8.2001 directed them to be released on probation.

3. A Writ Petition filed by the respondents was disposed of directing
the petitioner to decide the representations made by them within two months.
Pursuant to the said Order, a representation was filed which was rejected. A
E
writ petition was again filed questioning the said order which by reason of
the impugned judgment has been allowed by the High Court.

4. Mr. Vijay Kaushal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant
raised short contention in support of this appeal viz. that High Court committed F
-> a manifest error in passing the impugned judgment, insofar as it failed to take
into consideri!tion that the respondents being guilty of a serious misconduct,
could not have been directed to be re- instated in services only because they
were let off on probation. Strong reliance in this behalf has been placed on
Union of India and Ors. v. Baksh(Ram, [1990] 2 SCC 426.
G
5. Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
)
' respondent, on the other hand, submitted that this Court should not exercise
its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India
having regard to the passage of time and particularly in view of the fact that
no disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the delinquent employees.
H
688 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 5 S.C.R.

A 6. The learned counsel relying on the decision of this Court in The
Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Railway and Anr. v. T.R. Che/lappan -
etc., [ 1976] 3 SCC 190 urged that services of an employee cannot be terminated
without initiating any departmental proceedings. The learned counsel argued
that in any event the appellant having not questioned the Award of the
Labour Court, was bound to give effect thereto.
B
7. This Court in various decisions has considered the application of the
provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958; the purpose whereof not
marring the offenders normal life by removing him from the natural surrounding ~
of his house.
c 8. See Arvind Mohan Sinha v. Amulya Kumar Biswas and Ors., (1974]
4 SCC 222 and Hansa v. State of Punjab, (1977] 3 SCC 575].

9. We are, however, not called upon to determine a question as to
whether the High Court was correct in its judgment giving benefit of the
D Probation of Offenders Act to the respondents. The question, however, remain
as to what would be the consequences therefor.

I0. It may be true that, in absence of any statutory rule operating in the
field, the services of an employee cannot be terminated only because he was
found guilty of commission of any offence irrespective of the fact whether
E the same involved any moral turpitude on his part, but it would be a different ....
thing to say that an order made under the provisions of the probation of
offenders Act, would by itself be sufficient to arrive at a conclusion that
despite commission of a grave act of indiscipline, no disciplinary proceeding
should be initiated.

F 11. In Bakshi Ram (supra), considering the fact of applicability of
Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act and referring to the decision of
this Court in Chellappan (supra), it was held;

10. In criminal trial the conviction is one thing and sentence is another.
The departmental punishment for misconduct is yet a third one. The
G court while invoking the provisions of Section 3 or 4 of the Act does
not deal with the conviction; it only deals with the sentence which
). '
the offender has to undergo. Instead of sentencing the offender, the
court releases him on probation of good conduct. The conviction _ r
however, remains untouched and the stigma of conviction is not
H obliterated. In the departmental proceedings the delinquent could be
PUNJAB WATER SUPPLY SEWERAGE BOARD v. RAM SAJIVAN [S.B. SINHA,J.] 689
~ dismissed or removed or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct A
which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge [See Article
311(2Xb) of the Constitution and Tulsiram Patel case'].

11. Section 12 of the Act does not preclude the department from
taking action for misconduct leading to the offence or to his conviction
thereon as per law. The section was not intended to exonerate the B
person from departmental punishment. The question of reinstatement
into service from which he was removed in view of his conviction
.. j
does not therefore, arise. That seems obvious from the terminology
of Section 12. On this aspect, the High Courts speaks with one voice.

It was further observed; c
13. Section 12 is thus clear and it only directs that the offender shall
not suffer disqualification, if any, attaching to a conviction of an
offence under such law. Such law in the context is other law providing
for disqualification on account of conviction. For instance, if a law
provides for disqualification of a person for being appointed in any D
office or for seeking election to any authority or body in view of his
_.I._
' conviction, that disqualification by virtue of Section 12 stands removed.
That in effect is the scope and effect of Section 12 of the Act. But
that is not the same thing to state that the person who has been
dismissed from service in view of his conviction is entitled to E
reinstatement upon getting the benefit of probation of good conduct.
Apparently, such a view has no support by the terms of Section 12
and the order of the High Court cannot, therefore, be sustained.

12. In Chellappan (supra) whereupon Mr. Nidhesh Gupta placed strong
-) reliance, proceeded on the basis that the term consider and determine would F
carry with it the principles of natural justice vis-a-vis. application of Section
12.

13. It was, however, suggested that Rule 14(i) of the Rules of 1968 is
the provision which contains the disqualification by dispensing with
the departmental inquiries contemplated under Rules 9 to 13 of the G
'. ;.< said Rules. This cannot be the position, because as we have already
sa:d Rule l 4(i) only incorporates the principle of proviso (a) to Article
311 (2). If Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act completely
wiped out the disqualification contained in Article 311(2) proviso (a)
then it would have. become ultra vires as it would have come into
H
690 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 5 S.C.R.

A direct conflict with the provisions of the proviso (a) to Article 311(2).
In our opinion, however, Section 12 of the Act refers to only such
disqualifications as are expressly mentioned in other statutes regarding
holding of offices or standing for elections and so on. This matter was
considered by a number of High Courts and there is a consensus of
~'
• -\

judicial opinion on this point that Section 12 of the Act is not an
B automatic disqualification attached to the conviction itself.

*** *** ***
):
21. We now come to the third point that is involved in this case, ~

namely, the extent and ambit of the last part of Rule 14 of the Rules
c of 1968. The concerned portion runs thus:

... the disciplinary authority may consider the circumstances of the
case and make such orders thereon as it deems fit.

In this connection it was contended by the learned counsel for the
D appellants that this provision does not contemplate a full-dress or a
fresh inquiry after hearing the accused but only requires the disciplinary
authority to impose a suitable penalty once it is proved that the
delinquent employee has been convicted on a criminal charge. The
,l
-

E
Rajasthan High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 352 of 1971 concerning
Civil Appeal No. 891 of 1975 has given a very wide connotation to
the word consider as appearing in Rule 14 and has held that the word
..
consider is wide enough to require the disciplinary authority to hold
a detailed determination of the matter. We feel that we are not in a
position to go to the extreme limit to which the Rajasthan High Court
has gone. The w01 d consider has been used in contradistinction to
the word determine. The rule-making authority deliberately used the
F (-
word consider and not determine because the word determine has a
much wider scope. The word consider merely connotes that there
should be active application of the mind by the disciplinary authority
after considering the entire circumstances of the case in order to
decide the nature and extent of the penalty to be imposed on the
G delinquent employee on his conviction on a criminal charge. This
matter can be objectively determined orily if the delinquent employee
is heard and is given a chance to satisfy the authority regarding the *-
final orders that may be passed by the said authority. In other words,
the term consider postulates consideration of all the aspects, the pros
and cons of the matter after hearing the aggrieved person. Such an
H
PUNJAB WATER SUPPLY SEWERAGE BOARD v. RAM SAJIVAN [S.B. SINHA,).] 691
;
inquiry would be a summary inquiry to be held by the disciplinary A
authority after hearing the delinquent employee. It is not at all
necessary for the disciplinary authority to order a fresh departmental
inquiry which is dispensed with under Rule 14 of the Rules of 1968
which incorporates the principle contained in Article 311 (2) proviso
(a). This provision confers power on the disciplinary authority to
decide whether in the facts and circumstances of a particular case B
what penalty, if at all, should be imposed on the delinquent employee.
:l It is obvious that in considering this matter the disciplinary authority
~

will have to take into account the entire conduct of the delinquent
employee, the gravity of the misconduct committed by him, the impact
which his misconduct is likely to have on the administration and other
extenuating circumstances or redeeming features if any present in the
c
case and so on and so forth. It may be that the conviction of an
accused may be for a trivial offence as in the case of the respondent
T.R. Chellappan in Civil Appeal No. 1664 of 1974 where a stem warning
or a fine would have been sufficient to meet the exigencies of service.
It is possible that the delinquent employee may be found guilty of D
,\._
some technical offence, for instance, violation of the transport rules
or the rules under the Motor Vehicles Act and so on, where no major
penalty may be attracted. It is difficult to lay down any hard and fast
> rules as to the factors which the disciplinary authority would have to
consider, but I have mentioned some of these factors by way of E
instances which are merely illustrative and not exhaustive. In other
words, the position is that the conviction of the delinquent employee
would be taken as sufficient proof of misconduct and then the authority
will have to embark upon a summary inquiry as to the nature and
- )
extent of the penalty to be imposed on the delinquent employee and
in the course of the inquiry if the authority is of the opinion that the F
offence is too trivial or of a technical nature it may refuse to impose
any penalty in spite of the conviction. This is a very salutary provision
which has been enshrined in these Rules and one of the purposes for
conferring this power is that in cases where the disciplinary authority
is satisfied that the delinquent employee is a youthful offender who
G
~ J__ is not convicted of any serious offence and shows poignant penitence
or real repentance he may be dealt with as lightly as possible. This
appears to us to be the scope and ambit of this provision. We must,
however, hasten to add that we should not be understood as laying
down that the last part of Rule 14 of the Rules of 1968 contains a
licence to employees convicted of serious offences to insist on H
~92 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 5 S.C.R.

A reinstatement. The statutory provision referred to above merely imports
a rule of natural justice in enjoining that before taking final action in
the matter the delinquent employee should be heard and the
circumstances of the case may be objectively considered. This is in
keeping with the sense ofjustice and fairplay. The disciplinary authority
has the undoubted power after hearing the delinquent employee and
B considering the circumstances of the case to inflict any major penalty
on the delinquent employee without any further departmental inquiry
if the authority is of the opinion that the employee has been guilty
of a serious offence involving moral turpitude and, therefore, it is not
desirable or conducive in the interests of administration to retain such
C a person in service."

13. We may further notice that interpretation of the proviso (b) appended
to Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India, vis-a-vis, the aforementioned
terms consider and determine, came up for consideration before this Court in
Union of India and Anr. v. Tulsiram Patel etc., (1985] 3 SCC 398, wherein
D Chellappan (supra) was expressly overruled stating;
115. The decision in Chal/appan case is, therefore, not correct with
respect to the interpretation placed by it upon Rule 14 of the Railway
Servants Rules and particularly upon the word consider occurring in
the last part of that rule and in interpreting Rule 14 by itself and not
E in conjunction with the second proviso to Article 311(2). Before parting
with Challappan case, we may, also point out that that case never
held the field. The judgment in that case was delivered on September
15, 1975, and it was reported in (1976) 1 SCR at pages 783 fl'*. Hardly
was that case reported then in the next group of appeals in which the
same question was raised, namely, the three civil appeals mentioned
F earlier, an order of reference to a larger Bench was made on November
18, 1976. The correctness of Challappan case was, therefore, doubted
from the very beginning."

14. The services of the respondent were terminated which have been set
G aside by the Labour Court pursuant whereto, they have been re-instated in
service.

15. It is, however, one thing to say that prior to passing of the order··
of termination, a disciplinary proceeding should have been initiated, but it is
another thing to say as has been stated by the High Court that only because
H the respondents were let off on probation, the same should not affect his
PUNJAB WATERSUPPLYSEWERAGEBOARDv. RAMSAJJVAN (S.B. SINHA,l.) 693

service career at all. A
16. Before embarking on the said issue, we may notice a decision of this
Court relied upon by this Court in Aitha Chander Rao v. State of Andhra
Pradesh, [1981] Supp SCC 17, wherein it was observed;

"As the appellant has been released on probation, this may not affect B
his service career in view of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders
Act.. .. "

17. The said decision does not lay down any law. No reason has been
assigned in support thereof. This Court therein evidently exercised its
jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. C
18. In fact in Harichandv. Director of School Education, [1998] 2 SCC
383, Aitha Chander Rao (supra) was held to be not a binding precedent on
the point holding;

6. The order in the case of the said Rao was delivered on an appeal D
against conviction. The conviction was sustained but, having regard
to the peculiar circumstances of the case, the said Rao was released ·

.. on probation and it was added that this may not affect his service
career in view of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act. We
do not find in the order in Rao case 1 any discussion of the provision
of Section 12 or of the meaning of the words disqualification, if any E
attaching to a conviction of an offence under such law therein. The
order cannot, therefore, be regarded as a binding precedent upon the
point

7. In our view, Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act would
apply only in respect of a disqualification that goes with a conviction F
under the law which provides for the offence and its punishment. That
is the plain meaning of the words disqualification, if any, attaching to
a conviction of an offence under such law therein. Where the law that
provides for an offence and its punishment also stipulates a
disqualification, a person convicted of the offence but released on G
probation does not, by reason of Section 12, suffer the disqualification.
It cannot be held that, by reason of Section 12, a conviction for an
offence should not be taken into account for the purposes of dismissal
of the person convicted from government service."

H
694 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 5 S.C.R.

A 19. When the order of tennination passed by the appellant on the
ground of misconduct was set aside by the Labour Court, the only course
open to it was to initiate a regular departmental proceedings. Once they had
tenn inated the services of the respondent, during pendency of the criminal
case which as noticed hereinbefore was set aside resulting in their re-
instatement in services, which although did not preclude the appellant from
B taking further action against the respondents, the same was required to be
done only in tenns of the extant rules i.e. by initiation of a regular departmental
proceedings.

20. Submission of Mr. Gupta, that owing to passage of time, this Court
C would refrain itself from pennitting the appellant to initiate a full fledged
departmental proceeding at this stage, does not appeal to us. There are cases
and cases. Factors taking into consideration for issuing such a direction
would be different depending upon the factual matrix involved in each case.
Indiscipline at the work place has been considered by this Court seriously
particularly when the misconduct alleged is physical assault of a higher
D authority. The nature of assault, the role played by the concerned workman
and the question as to whether with the passage of time any proceeding
should be initiated or not, in our opinion plays an important role and as such
does not merit laying down a general law in this behalf.

21. In Muriadih Colliery of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Bihar Colliery
-
E Kamgar Union Through Workmen, [2005] 3 SCC 331, a Division Bench noticing
an earlier judgment of this Court in Krishnakali Tea Estate v. Akhil Bharatiya
Chah Mazdoor Sangh and Anr., (2004] 8 SCC 200 opined;

17...... The courts below by condoning an act of physical violence
have undennined the discipline in the organization, hence, in the (.
F above factual backdrop, it can never be said that the Industrial Tribunal
could have exercised its authority under Section 11-A of the Act to
interfere with the punishment of dismissal. Substituting the order of
dismissal in such a case, withholding of one increment in our opinions
wholly disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct and is
G unsupportable.

18. Herein it is worthwhile to recall the finding of the learned Single
Judge who has rightly held that the assault on the senior officials by
the workmen in discharging of their duties is a misconduct and in
such a situation officials who are managing the affairs will be
H
PUNJAB WATER SUPPLY SEWERAGE BOARD v. RAM SAJIVAN [S.B. SINHA, J.) 695
~

demoralised. A
22. In Hombe Gowda Educational Trust and Anr. v. State of Karnataka
and Ors., [2006] I SCC 430, the said decisions were followed stating;

30. This Court has come a long way from its earlier viewpoints. The
recent trend in the decisions of this Court seek to strike a balance B

-
between the earlier approach to the industrial relation wherein only
i the interest of the workmen was sought to be protected with the
avowed object of fast industrial growth of the country. In several
decisions of this Court it has been noticed how discipline at the
workplace/industrial undertakings received a setback. In view of the
change in economic policy of the country, it may not now be proper c
to allow the employees to break the discipline with impunity. Our
country is governed by rule of law. All actions, therefore, must be
taken in accordance with law. Law declared by this Court in terms of
Article 141 of the Constitution, as noticed in the decisions noticed
supra, categorically demonstrates that the Tribunal would not normally
D
interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed by the employers
....
unless an appropriate case is made out therefor. The Tribunal being
inferior to this Court was bound to follow the decisions of this Court
which are applicable to the facts of the present case in question. The
Tribunal can neither ignore the ratio laid down by this Court nor
refuse to follow the same." E
See also Harjit Singh & Anr. v. The State of Punjab & Anr., (2007) 3
SCALE553].

,, 23. A question as to whether a long delay by itself would be a sufficient
ground for not directing initiation of a departmental proceeding came up for F
consideration before this Court in P. D. Agrawal v. State Bank of India & Ors.,
(2006) 5 SCALE 54, wherein the doctrine of prejudice was considered stating
that ifthere exists a satisfactory explanation for delay, same may not be a bar
in directing initiation of a fresh proceedings. We, however, are not oblivious
that in a different situation, this Court in M V. Bijlani v. Union ofIndia, [2006]
,Ai
5 sec 88] took the factor in regard to delay in initiating a departmental
G
'
proceedings as one of the relevant factors amongst others to determine the
question as to whether a misconduct has been proved or not.

24. The instant case is not one where we can ignore the gravity of the
offence. It is also not a case where the respondents have pleaded prejudice H
696 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] _5 S.C.R.

A or brought sufficient materials on records so as to enable this Court to arrive
at a finding that no evidence would be available. If departmental proceeding
is directed to be initiated then Respondent would not be in a position to
adduce any evidence in support of defence, because of passage of time.

25. We, therefore are of the opinion that the interest of justice would
B be met if liberty is granted to the appellant herein to initiate a disciplinary
proceedings against the respondent whereafter the appellants may pass
appropriate order in accordance with law. The impugned judgment is set
aside.
-
26. These appeals are allowed to the aforementioned extent. However,
there shall be no order as to costs.

N.J. Appeal allowed.

( -