Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra and its officers filed a writ petition challenging the order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, dated 3rd April 1998 in Original Application No. 615 of 1997. The respondent, Ramrao Yadaorao Nandurkar, was a Process Etcher at the Government Press, Nagpur. On 23rd July 1997, he punched his attendance card at 9:35 am but left the premises without permission and returned at 12:10 pm. The Manager questioned him about his absence, and the respondent engaged in verbal altercation. A memo dated 26th July 1997 was served on him calling for explanation. He submitted his explanation on 28th July 1997, admitting absence but denying misbehavior. The employer found the explanation unsatisfactory and issued a show cause notice dated 4th September 1997 proposing to withhold one increment for one year. After considering his reply, the penalty was imposed. The respondent challenged the penalty before the Tribunal, which set aside the order on the ground that the penalty was disproportionate. The High Court held that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to reappreciate evidence or interfere with the quantum of punishment unless it was shockingly disproportionate. The Court found that the respondent admitted his absence, and the penalty of withholding one increment was not excessive. The writ petition was allowed, and the Tribunal's order was quashed.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Misconduct - Unauthorized Absence - The respondent employee was absent from workplace for about three hours without permission and engaged in verbal altercation with the manager - The employer issued a show cause memo and after considering explanation, imposed penalty of withholding one increment for one year - The Tribunal set aside the penalty holding it disproportionate - The High Court held that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in reappreciating evidence and interfering with the quantum of punishment - The penalty was proportionate to the misconduct (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal setting aside the penalty of withholding one increment for misconduct was justified.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dated 3rd April 1998, and restored the penalty order dated 4th September 1997 withholding one increment of the respondent for one year.
Law Points
- Disciplinary proceedings
- misconduct
- unauthorized absence
- proportionality of punishment
- natural justice
- show cause notice
- explanation considered
Case Details
2014 LawText (BOM) (11) 82
Writ Petition No. 2255 of 1998
B. P. Dharmadhikari, P. R. Bora
Mr T. R. Kankale for petitioners; None appears for respondent
The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Industries and Labour Department, Mumbai; The Director, Government Printing and Stationary, Mumbai; The Manager, Government Press and Book Depot, Nagpur
Ramrao Yadaorao Nandurkar
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the order of Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal setting aside disciplinary penalty.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners (State of Maharashtra and its officers) sought quashing of the Tribunal's order dated 3rd April 1998 which set aside the penalty of withholding one increment for one year imposed on the respondent.
Filing Reason
The Tribunal set aside the penalty on the ground that it was disproportionate to the misconduct of unauthorized absence and misbehavior.
Previous Decisions
The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, in Original Application No. 615 of 1997, set aside the penalty order dated 4th September 1997.
Issues
Whether the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal was justified in setting aside the penalty of withholding one increment for one year imposed on the respondent for misconduct of unauthorized absence and misbehavior.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the respondent admitted his absence without permission and his explanation was unsatisfactory; the penalty was proportionate and the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by reappreciating evidence.
Respondent did not appear; no arguments were advanced.
Ratio Decidendi
The Tribunal cannot reappreciate evidence or interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority unless the punishment is shockingly disproportionate. The penalty of withholding one increment for one year for unauthorized absence and misbehavior was proportionate and not excessive.
Judgment Excerpts
Order passed by the Nagpur Bench of Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No. 615 of 1997 on 3rd April 1998 is questioned in the present writ petition.
Respondent though provided some explanation for his absence, while doing so, he indulged in the verbal altercations with petitioner no. 3.
The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to reappreciate the evidence and to interfere with the quantum of punishment unless the punishment is shockingly disproportionate.
Procedural History
On 23rd July 1997, respondent was absent without permission and misbehaved. Memo dated 26th July 1997 issued. Explanation submitted on 28th July 1997. Show cause notice dated 4th September 1997 proposing penalty. Penalty of withholding one increment for one year imposed. Respondent filed Original Application No. 615 of 1997 before Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, which set aside the penalty on 3rd April 1998. State filed Writ Petition No. 2255 of 1998 before Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, which allowed the petition on 5th November 2014.
