In a recent judgment, the Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court addressed the proportionality of disciplinary actions in employment, particularly concerning the termination of an employee for a solitary clerical mistake. The court deemed such a severe penalty as excessive and advocated for a more measured approach, suggesting that a minor penalty would have been more appropriate.
Case Background
The case involved an employee who was terminated in 2017 by the Collector for a single instance of negligence during her entire service career. The termination was executed without issuing a show-cause notice or conducting any formal inquiry, raising questions about the adherence to principles of natural justice. The employee challenged this decision, and the writ court found the termination order to be stigmatic and unsustainable due to the lack of due process.
High Court's Observations
Upon reviewing the appeal filed by the State against the writ court's decision, the division bench comprising Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Gajendra Singh upheld the earlier judgment. The court emphasized that imposing the harsh punishment of termination for a single act of negligence, especially without following due process, was disproportionate. The bench stated, "For the singular negligence in entire service career of the writ petitioner, the harsh punishment of termination from service was imposed by the Collector that too, without giving any show cause notice and without conducting any inquiry, therefore the Writ Court rightly found that the order is stigmatic and punishment of termination has been imposed, without giving any opportunity of hearing, hence unsustainable."
Awarding Back Wages
The High Court directed the State to pay 50% of back wages to the terminated employee. During the proceedings, the Deputy Advocate General (DAG) contended that the employee had not explicitly pleaded unemployment during the period following termination, which is typically a prerequisite for awarding back wages. However, the court noted that, given the honorarium the employee was receiving, the back wages would not amount to a substantial sum. The bench dismissed the State's appeal, thereby affirming the writ court's decision to award partial back wages.
Implications for Employment Law
This judgment underscores the necessity for proportionality in disciplinary actions within employment settings. It highlights that while employers have the authority to enforce discipline, the penalties imposed must be commensurate with the misconduct. The court's decision serves as a reminder that due process, including issuing show-cause notices and conducting inquiries, is essential before imposing severe penalties like termination.
Conclusion
The Madhya Pradesh High Court's ruling reinforces the principle that termination should be a last resort, reserved for the most severe cases of misconduct. For isolated and minor infractions, especially those occurring over an extended service period, less severe penalties should be considered. This approach ensures fairness and upholds the principles of natural justice in employment practices.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.