Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal Findings of Fact Cannot Be Re-Appreciated in an Appeal Under Section 10F Companies Act: Madras High Court Equality Is Not A Mechanical Formula, But A Human Commitment: P&H High Court Grants Visually Impaired Mali Retrospective Promotions With Full Benefits Orissa High Court Rules Notice for No Confidence Motion Must Include Both Requisition and Resolution – Provision Held Mandatory Ashramam Built on Private Land, Managed by Family – Not a Public Religious Institution: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Endowments Notification Cruelty Must Be Proved, Not Presumed: Gujarat High Court Acquits Deceased Husband In 498A Case After 22 Years Trade Dress Protection Goes Beyond Labels: Calcutta High Court Affirms Injunction Over Coconut Oil Packaging Mimicry Mere Filing of Income Tax Returns Does Not Exonerate the Accused: Madras High Court Refuses Discharge to Wife of Public Servant in ₹2 Crore DA Case

Delhi High Court Remands Departmental Inquiry Penalty for Unauthorized Absence During Pandemic

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant verdict, the Delhi High Court, in a bench comprising of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, set aside the penalty imposed in a departmental inquiry against an employee for unauthorized absence during the COVID-19 pandemic. The court emphasized the need for the application of the doctrine of proportionality while imposing penalties in such cases.

The appellant had challenged the penalty imposed on him for his absence during the pandemic, citing special circumstances of quarantine and medical grounds. The court observed that the quantum of punishment must be reasonable and proportionate to the misconduct, taking into consideration the measure, magnitude, degree of misconduct, and all relevant circumstances.

"Penalty must not be grossly in excess of allegations. The principles of natural justice demand that disciplinary proceedings be conducted fairly and based on evidence," the bench noted in its judgement.

The court emphasized that during the pandemic, cases of unauthorized absence require sympathetic consideration, and penalties imposed should be assessed with consideration for compelling circumstances. The court's ruling follows its intervention based on the doctrine of proportionality, emphasizing that penalties imposed in such cases should not be disproportionate to the circumstances.

The bench also highlighted the importance of a fair departmental inquiry and the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters. The verdict sets a precedent by applying the doctrine of proportionality to remand the matter to the Disciplinary Authority for re-evaluation of the penalty.

This decision is expected to have far-reaching implications for cases of unauthorized absence during the pandemic and underscores the necessity of assessing penalties based on the unique circumstances surrounding the COVID-19 crisis.

Justice V. Kameswar Rao stated, "The penalty must be proportionate to the circumstances and not grossly in excess of the allegations. In cases of unauthorized absence during the pandemic, the compelling circumstances of quarantine and medical grounds must be taken into account."

Legal experts have praised the High Court's ruling, hailing it as a fair and balanced approach that considers the challenges faced by individuals during the unprecedented circumstances of the pandemic.

The court referred to the importance of the doctrine of proportionality in disciplinary proceedings, reminding authorities to ensure a just balance between the gravity of the misconduct and the penalties imposed.

Date of Decision: 17th August 2023

SANDEEP KUMAR YADAV vs GNCT OF DELHI & ORS.

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Sandeep_Kumar_Yadav_vs_Gnctd_Ors_on_17_August_2023_DelHC.pdf"]

Latest Legal News