Summary
Dismissal of an electricity-company engineer, coupled with permanent pension withholding and gratuity forfeiture, was set aside. Advance intimation and sanctioned leave weakened the conference-attendance charge, while the finding that a bidder funded his airfare contradicted the accepted proof that he paid it himself. The extreme penalty was disproportionate, and pension sanctions lacked authority in the proceedings invoked. Relief was moulded as voluntary retirement from the date of his resignation, with admissible retirement benefits.
Issues
- Whether the disciplinary findings and extreme punishment were sustainable on the evidence.
- Whether the invoked service regulations authorised pension withholding and gratuity forfeiture.
- What final service relief was appropriate.
Provisions considered
- Regulation 62, West Bengal State Electricity Board Employees’ Service RegulationsThe enumerated penalties did not include permanent pension withholding or gratuity forfeiture; those sanctions could not be imposed in the service-regulation proceedings drawn here. (¶ 21–25)
- Regulation 11A, West Bengal State Electricity Board Employees’ (Death-Cum-Retirement Benefit) Regulations, 1985Did not validate the penalties imposed in different proceedings without the required separate action and notice; the employee had not retired or become a pensioner. (¶ 23–25)
Held
- The superior knew of the conference in advance and later sanctioned casual leave. Even assuming written permission was required, these facts did not support the extreme punishment for the attendance alleged. (¶ 14–15)
- The bidder had not paid the airfare and the employee’s own payment receipt was undisputed. Treating use of the bidder’s travel agent as equivalent to borrowing money was a perverse inference. No evidence showed a favour or pecuniary benefit in the tender decision. (¶ 16–18)
- Although disciplinary punishment ordinarily belongs to the employer, judicial review may intervene when it shocks the conscience. Dismissal on this evidentiary and disciplinary record was grossly disproportionate. (¶ 19–20)
- The pension and gratuity sanctions could not be justified after the event through another set of regulations. The necessary jurisdictional and procedural foundation was absent. (¶ 21–25)
- Rather than restore reinstatement and back wages, the Court treated the previously submitted resignation as voluntary retirement and directed computation of benefits admissible on that date. (¶ 26–27)
Result
Appeal allowed to the stated extent. Dismissal set aside; resignation of 13 May 2008 to be treated as voluntary retirement on that date. Admissible pension, gratuity and other retirement benefits to be computed and paid within two months, failing which payment carries 6% annual interest.