Chennai, Apr 12: The Madras High Court while ordering reinstatement of an employee, observed that his dismissal from service for mere filing of complaint is disproportionate. The Court was considering a Writ-Petition filed by an Associate Professor against his dismissal order.
The single-bench of Justice C Kumarappan observed that, the action of the petitioner in giving a complaint to the Rector overtly exhibits obstinate and obfuscate opinion towards the institution, which resulted in hyperbolic allegation, which would definitely be poignant against the persons alleged. But, one fact which to be mentioned is, the charge do not impute the petitioner for browbeating. Every individual has got right to complain of certain misdeeds, provided it must be supported with verifiable materials.
Merely because, the complaint is not proved or not substantiated with materials, will in no way entail dismissal from service."
The Petitioner appeared in-person & the Petitioner, an Associate Professor of the Respondent-College, joined Institution in 1990 and served for more than 27 years and during this he got many encomia and also held various responsible positions in the institution.
In 2017, he was suspended from service, and was also served with a charge memorandum. In pursuance of the above charge, an enquiry was conducted and ultimately the Enquiry Officer gave a positive report holding that the charges against the petitioner are proved.
After that, the Petitioner was served with the second show-cause notice and on the basis of the enquiry report and the explanation given by the Petitioner to the second show-cause notice, he was dismissed from service.
The Petitioner contended that the order of dismissal is against the evidence, and procedure though the Court directed the Respondent to consider his past service and to dispose of the disciplinary proceedings sympathetically, in total disregard to the order of the Court, passed the dismissal order, which is an apparent infirmity on the face of the impugned order.
He further contended that though there is no imputation against him for the circulation of his letter, the Enquiry Officer gone beyond the imputation and gave a finding that the petitioner was instrumental in circulating the confidential communication, which is perverse finding, and contrary to the evidence.
The Petitioner also contended that the punishment imposed against the Petitioner is shockingly disproportionate.
On the other hand, Counsel for the Respondent contended that the Petitioner has made a deliberate false and vituperative statement against the responsible persons of their institution, and that such statements are highly defamatory in nature. It was submitted that, the authorship of letter is not in dispute and that he caused circulation of the same in the WhatsApp and thereby, caused great disrepute to the institution and to its officials. He also contended that unless the finding of the Enquiry Officer is perverse, the Court should not interfere with the findings and that the punishment is proportionate to the gravity of the charge, and that under the power of judicial review, the quantum of punishment cannot be gone into, unless it is shockingly disproportionate.
The Court at the outset noted that there was an overt direction against the Management to consider the past service and previous conduct of the Petitioner before passing final order, however, the Disciplinary Authority, passed the impugned order of dismissal in utter disregard to the above order, wherein there is no reference as to the consideration of the past service and previous conduct of the petitioner.
It pointed out that in the 27 years of service, the Petitioner did not come in the adverse notice of the Management and on the date of passing of the order of dismissal, he had only an year of remaining service. "As far as the letter submitted before the Rector [PW1] privately, no one can have any grievance. But, issue turned to become serious on account of it's circulation in the Social Media. In such view of the matter, the gravity of charge meta morphed to serious one. The Management examined a witness to prove the discussion about the subject letter, before it was submitted to the Rector. Even such private confabulation cannot be a serious charge. It turned to become serious only after it's circulation in Social Media," the Court observed.
Noting that the authorship of the letter is not in dispute, the Court stated that the only issue revolves around whether, the Petitioner was responsible and instrumental in circulating his letter. In this regard, it observed that there is absolutely no proof for the same but the Enquiry Officer found that there is a probable evidence for the same.
"Though there is a finding that the letter was in the circulation in WhatsApp, the circulation by itself cannot be charged, unless the petitioner was instrumental for the same. Here, there are no proof as to on which date it was first noticed in Social Media to say that letter was in circulation even prior to the submission before PW1 Rector," the Court observed.
It held that when there is no imputation as found by the Enquiry Officer, the question of finding him that he caused the letter to be posted on WhatsApp is against the principles of natural justice, as the Petitioner was admittedly not put on notice about the allegation.
"On reading the impugned order, it is obvious that, the delinquency viewed seriously on the reason of it's circulation through WhatsApp. But, curiously there is no charge for the same," the Court observed.
It added that there is no iota of reference as to his past service and previous conduct, which is nothing but total disregard to the order of the Court.
"Here, in view of absence of imputation against the petitioner for the social media circulation, the charge can be segregated in two parts, (i) writing a slandering letter without any material and (ii) circulating it in WhatsApp.
As far as the first part of the charge is concerned, as it is private communication between the management and the petitioner, and a private deliberation between a co-staff and the petitioner, the same is not as serious as in the case of circulation in WhatsApp. If we dealt this solitary unsubstantiated letter of the petitioner, as a grave and unpardonable crime, the same would usher the despot, and emasculate bona fide complaints.
While saying so, I am conscious of the poignancy of the affected person. But, the point which I bring home is the remedy should not be worse than the disease. It has long been settled that the punishment should commensurate with gravity of guilt.
Under the service jurisprudence before imposing any punishment the Disciplinary Authority must consider the factors like the long and spotless service, number and nature of promotions, the encomia awarded to the delinquent and the shortness of the period remaining for superannuation.
Here, all those factors were left unnoticed and constricted," the Court observed.
The Court concluded that the action of the Petitioner in giving a complaint to the Rector overtly exhibits obstinate and obfuscate opinion towards the institution, which resulted in hyperbolic allegation, which would definitely be poignant against the persons alleged but, one fact which to be mentioned is, the charge do not impute the Petitioner for browbeating.
21. In view of the above detailed discussion, this writ petition is partly allowed by modifying the punishment of dismissal from service to compulsory retirement.
Since the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation, the respondent is directed to pay all the monetary benefits and other attendant benefits in accordance with this order, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No cost.
Cause Title: Dr. S.John William vs. Loyala College (Autonomous) (2025:MHC:81)
|