Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Chhattisgarh Single Bench of Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas dismissed a petition challenging the rejection of a service reinstatement application, upholding the lower courts' decisions which found the punishment proportionate to the employee's misconduct. The Court held that while the application challenging the termination was not barred by limitation, the dismissal on grounds of habitual absenteeism was legally justified. The writ petition was therefore dismissed, with no relief granted to the petitioner.

The petitioner was employed as a Technician at Bhilai Steel Plant since 1988. It was alleged that he remained absent from duty for 140 days between 01.05.1994 and 17.09.1994 without sanctioned leave. As a result, a departmental enquiry was initiated, and the petitioner's services were terminated via order dated 18.08.1995.

Also Read: Fit Case For Furlough Release As Petitioner Has Completed 20 Years Of Uninterrupted Incarceration Without Remission | Supreme Court Orders Three Month Conditional Relief

The petitioner, challenging this order, filed an application under Section 31(3) of the M.P.I.R. Act, 1960 before the Labour Court, Durg, on 24.04.2003. He contended that the departmental enquiry violated principles of natural justice as he was not granted a fair opportunity to present his case. Additionally, he argued that the punishment of termination was disproportionate to the alleged misconduct and sought reinstatement with full back wages.

Respondent No. 1, the Managing Director of Bhilai Steel Plant, submitted a written statement opposing the petition. It was asserted that the petitioner had committed a major misconduct by remaining absent for 140 days without obtaining sanctioned leave. A charge-sheet dated 28.10.1994 was issued, charging the petitioner with "habitual absence from duty unauthorizedly from May 1994 without leave/prior intimation/sanction of leave."

According to the respondent, the departmental enquiry was conducted in accordance with principles of natural justice. It was stated that the petitioner admitted the charges on 03.06.1995 and requested leniency for the misconduct committed. Subsequently, the termination order was issued on 22.08.1995.

The respondent also raised a limitation objection, arguing that the application was filed after an eight-year delay. As per Section 62 of the C.G.I.R. Act, an application relating to termination must be filed within one year. The petitioner had not obtained leave, and hence, his prolonged unauthorized absence justified the termination.

The petitioner filed a reply, asserting that he had made several representations and appeals between 1995 and 1999 for re-appointment, which were not decided. These included communications on 07.09.1995, 04.10.1995, 06.11.1995, 03.05.1996, 06.12.1996, 09.04.1997, 05.10.1997, 03.02.1998, 10.12.1998, 04.03.1999, and 10.05.1999. Therefore, he contended, the application was not time-barred, and delay should be condoned.

The Labour Court framed four issues. In an order dated 09.10.2006, it concluded that the departmental enquiry violated principles of natural justice and was thus vitiated. Respondent No. 1 was given an opportunity to prove the misconduct through evidence.

The respondent filed a miscellaneous application under Section 67 of the C.G.I.R. Act before the Industrial Court, challenging the Labour Court's order. This application was dismissed on 25.01.2007. Subsequently, respondent No. 1 led evidence, examining two witnesses: Mr. A.K. Shrivastava, who testified that the petitioner neither applied for nor was granted leave; and Mr. Siddharth Kumar Das, who stated that the petitioner had previously been punished for absenteeism.

After considering the evidence and record, the Labour Court dismissed the application on 27.10.2010. It found that the petitioner had remained absent for 140 days without sanctioned leave and had filed his application eight years after termination. The punishment was found proportionate to the misconduct.

The petitioner appealed this decision to the Industrial Court, which rejected the appeal on 29.04.2011. It found the punishment justified and confirmed the application was barred by limitation, as it had been filed eight years post-termination.

The petitioner then approached the High Court by filing the present writ petition.

The Court examined two main issues: whether the application was barred by limitation, and whether the punishment was proportionate to the misconduct.

On the issue of limitation, the Court noted that: "From bare perusal of Section 29 of the Limitation Act, it is quite vivid that there is no specific exclusion of provisions of Limitation Act, 1963 and Section 4 to 24 both would apply."

Referring to Section 62 of the C.G.I.R. Act and the Full Bench decision in Mohd. Sagir Vs. Bharat Heavy Electricals, the Court held: "Thus, as per Section 29 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and in view of the fact that there is no specific exclusion of Limitation Act, as such provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 will applicable in the proceedings under Section 62 of the C.G.I.R. Act."

Accordingly, the Court held: "It cannot be held that the application is barred by limitation, thus both the Courts below have committed illegality in dismissing the application preferred by the petitioner on the count of delay and latches."

However, addressing the second issue, the Court extensively examined the facts and previous instances of misconduct: "The petitioner remained absent from 01.05.1994 to 17.09.1994 for 140 days and prior to it also he remained absent for which he has been punished on 03 occasions i.e. on 11.12.1992, 28.02.1994 & 28.10.1994 and the tenure of the petitioner is only 08 years wherein he has been punished on several occasions."

The Court noted the earlier punishments: a warning in 1992, reduction of pay without cumulative effect in 1993, and downgrading from L-4 to L-3 for three years in 1994.

It was observed: "Even the petitioner has not placed any record that he has submitted the application for leave which has been sanctioned and unless the leave has been sanctioned by the competent authority it will remain unauthorized."

Quoting from Gujarat Electricity Board & Another vs. Atmaram Sungomal Poshani, the Court held: "No Government servant or employee of any public undertaking has a right to be absent from duty without sanction of leave, merely on account of pendency of representation against the order of transfer."

The Court stated that the role of the judiciary in disciplinary matters is limited: "The imposition of punishment is managerial function of the management and unless the punishment is so shocking or touches the conscious of the Court it should not be interfered by the Court."

Citing Union of India v. K.G. Soni and State of Uttar Pradesh v. Man Mohan Nath Sinha, the Court stated: "Unless the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the Appellate Authority shocks the conscience of the court/tribunal, there is no scope for interference."

Therefore, while it found error in the finding on limitation, the Court upheld the findings on misconduct and punishment.

The Court concluded that: "Both the Courts below have committed illegality in holding the application to be barred by limitation, but has not committed any illegality or irregularity in recording its finding that the petitioner remained absent for 140 days and he has also past antecedents of remaining absent for which he has been punished on so many occasions which clearly establishes that he is habitual of remaining absent from duty."

It held: "Punishment of removal from service imposed upon the petitioner is proportionate to the misconduct committed by him."

Also Read: Delhi HC Dismisses Section 9 Petition In Coal Contract Dispute | Says Unliquidated Damages Do Not Give Rise To Debt | Mere Existence Of Branch Office Does Not Confer Jurisdiction

The Court concluded: "Considering the entire fact and material on record, I am of the view that both the Courts below have not committed any illegality in rejecting the application of the petitioner for reinstatement."

The Court further stated: "Consequently, the impugned order dismissing the application by the Labour Court and affirmed by the Industrial Court for misconduct are legal, justified and the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief though it has been held by this Court that the application filed by the petitioner under Section 31(3) of the C.G.I.R. Act, is not barred by limitation."

Consequently, the Court directed: "The writ petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed. No order as to cost."

Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sudeep Johri, Advocate
For the Respondents: Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, Advocate

Case Title: M. Mohan Rao vs. Managing Director, Bhilai Steel Plant & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: CGHC:26933
Case Number: WPL No. 5110 of 2011
Bench: Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas