Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Kiran B. Pulekar, was appointed as Junior Technical Assistant with the Shipping Corporation of India (SCI) in October 1987 and later promoted to Section Head in September 1994. He filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Bombay High Court alleging financial losses to SCI and questioning the competence of its Chairman and Managing Director. The PIL was dismissed as not maintainable because the petitioner had an interest as an employee, and he was allowed to withdraw it with liberty to file appropriate proceedings. Subsequently, he filed Writ Petition No. 2084 of 2016 challenging the appointment of Shri B.B. Sinha as Director (P&A) on educational qualification grounds, which was dismissed on 19 June 2017 as the petitioner had already been terminated on 13 April 2017. The Supreme Court disposed of the related SLP as infructuous in January 2019. The present petition challenges the termination order dated 13 April 2017. The petitioner was issued a charge-sheet on 9 April 2012 for contravening Rule 17(1)(ii)(e) of the SCI Service Rules regarding absenteeism in December 2008 and between April 2009 to May 2011. A show cause notice was issued on 8 June 2011, and an inquiry officer was appointed on 20 June 2012. The petitioner submitted documentary evidence including attendance slips and medical papers showing he suffered from slip disc, acute knee pain, and malarial fever. The inquiry report was filed on 25 April 2013, and after nearly four years, the termination order was passed. The court considered the submissions and held that the inquiry was conducted fairly, the petitioner was given adequate opportunity, and the findings were not perverse. The medical evidence did not cover all periods of absence, and the petitioner failed to provide a satisfactory explanation. The court dismissed the petition, upholding the termination.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Unauthorized Absence - Rule 17(1)(ii)(e) of SCI Service Rules - The petitioner, an employee of Shipping Corporation of India, was terminated for unauthorized absence from duty in December 2008 and between April 2009 to May 2011. The court examined whether the inquiry was fair and the punishment proportionate. Held that the inquiry was conducted properly, the petitioner was given adequate opportunity, and the findings were not perverse. The punishment of termination was not disproportionate given the prolonged unauthorized absence. (Paras 2-10) B) Service Law - Medical Evidence - Absenteeism - The petitioner claimed that his absence was due to medical conditions such as slip disc, acute knee pain, and malarial fever, supported by medical papers. The court considered whether the medical evidence justified the absence. Held that the medical evidence did not cover all periods of absence and the petitioner failed to provide satisfactory explanation for the unauthorized absence. The disciplinary authority correctly rejected the medical justification. (Paras 4-8) C) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Judicial Review of Disciplinary Action - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - The court reiterated the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters. Held that the court does not sit as an appellate authority over the findings of the disciplinary authority unless the findings are perverse or the procedure is vitiated. In this case, no such infirmity was found. (Paras 9-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the termination of the petitioner from service for unauthorized absence was legally valid and whether the disciplinary proceedings were fair and in accordance with law.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. The termination order dated 13 April 2017 is upheld.
Law Points
- Termination for unauthorized absence
- Disciplinary proceedings
- Judicial review of disciplinary action
- Proportionality of punishment
- Medical evidence in absenteeism cases
