The Supreme Court of India, in a significant ruling on service law, has held that a disciplinary authority can refer to an employee’s past misconduct while imposing a penalty, even if it was not mentioned in the show-cause notice, provided the penalty is primarily based on the current proved charge. The Court clarified that such a reference is permissible to “add weight” to the decision, especially in cases of grave misconduct.
A bench comprising Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi delivered the judgment, allowing an appeal by the State of Punjab. The Court set aside a Punjab and Haryana High Court order that had reinstated a dismissed police constable, thereby upholding the disciplinary authority’s decision to dismiss him for unauthorized absence.
Background of the Case
The case concerns Ex. Constable Satpal Singh, who was appointed to the Punjab Armed Forces on August 4, 1989, and later transferred to the 2nd Commando Battalion. He proceeded on a one-day leave on April 2, 1994, but failed to rejoin his duties on April 4, 1994. He resumed his duties only on May 12, 1994, after an unauthorized absence of approximately 37 days.
A departmental enquiry was initiated, and a chargesheet was served upon him on August 7, 1994. Following the enquiry, where the respondent was found guilty, a show-cause notice dated May 25, 1995, was issued, proposing the punishment of dismissal. The respondent did not file a reply.
On May 3, 1996, the disciplinary authority passed an order dismissing him from service. This order, while based on the finding of guilt for the 37-day absence, also mentioned his past record, including forfeited service, previous punishments, and pending enquiries. His subsequent departmental appeal and revision petition were also dismissed.
Aggrieved, the respondent filed a civil suit, which was dismissed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sultanpur Lodhi, and his first appeal was dismissed by the District Judge, Kapurthala. However, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a second appeal, set aside these orders on August 4, 2010, holding that the disciplinary authority had wrongly considered his past record without mentioning it in the show-cause notice, violating the principles of natural justice.
Arguments of the Parties
The State of Punjab, represented by its counsel, argued before the Supreme Court that the High Court had erred. The appellants contended that the dismissal order was based solely on the misconduct of unauthorized absence for 37 days. The reference to the past record was “only for adding the weight to the decision of imposing the punishment of dismissal.” They further argued that the High Court had misinterpreted Rule 16.2(1) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, and wrongly concluded that the constable had put in a “long period of service.”
Conversely, counsel for the respondent, Satpal Singh, supported the High Court’s judgment. He argued that the disciplinary authority violated the law laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Mysore vs. K. Manche Gowda, by relying on past misconduct without disclosing it in the show-cause notice. It was also contended that Rule 16.2(1) mandated consideration of the length of service before imposing dismissal.
Court’s Analysis and Decision
The Supreme Court meticulously examined the dismissal order and the relevant legal precedents. The bench observed that the disciplinary authority had first confirmed its agreement with the enquiry officer’s findings regarding the unauthorized absence. Only after reaching this conclusion did it refer to the constable’s past record.
The Court held that the principle laid down in K. Manche Gowda applies when the past conduct is the basis for the punishment. In this case, the punishment was a direct consequence of the proved misconduct. The Court found that the reference to the past record was not the “effective reason” for the dismissal.
Citing its earlier decision in Union of India & Ors. vs. Bishamber Das Dogra, the bench stated, “in case of misconduct of grave nature or indiscipline, even in the absence of statutory rules, the authority may take into consideration the indisputable past conduct/service record of the employee for adding the weight to the decision of imposing the punishment if the facts of the case so require.”
The Court also clarified the interpretation of Rule 16.2(1) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934. It noted that the rule has two parts. The first allows dismissal for the “gravest acts of misconduct.” The second allows dismissal for the “cumulative effect of continued misconduct proving incorrigibility,” which requires regard to the length of service. The Court concluded that the respondent’s unauthorized absence, being a member of a disciplined force, fell under the “gravest acts of misconduct,” making consideration of service length unnecessary under the first part of the rule.
The bench found the High Court’s observation about the respondent’s “long service” to be “erroneous,” as he had served for less than seven years.
Concluding its analysis, the Supreme Court stated, “The disciplinary authority, while imposing the penalty, had merely referred the past conduct and also given weight to the gravest act of misconduct. The order of dismissal is not based on the charge of ‘cumulative effect of continued misconduct proving incorrigibility and complete unfitness for police service’.”
Finding no fault in the procedure followed by the disciplinary authority, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal. The judgment of the High Court was set aside, and the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff was dismissed, thereby upholding his dismissal from service.
