Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court Illicit Affair Alone Cannot Make a Man Guilty of Abetting Suicide: Supreme Court Quashes Charge Under Section 306 IPC Landlord Cannot Be Punished for Slowness of Courts: Supreme Court on Bonafide Need in Eviction Suits Expect States To Enact Laws Regulating Unlicensed Money Lenders Charging Exorbitant Interest Contrary To 'Damdupat': Supreme Court Accused Who Skips Lok Adalat After Seeking It, Then Cries 'Prejudice', Cannot Claim Apprehension of Denial of Justice: Madras High Court Refuse To Transfer Case IO Cannot Act Without Prior Sanction: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail, Flags Procedural Lapse in Religious Conversion Case Electricity Board Strictly Liable For Unprotected Transformer, 7-Year-Old Cannot Be Guilty Of Contributory Negligence: Allahabad High Court POCSO Conviction Can't Stand For Offence Not Charged: Delhi High Court Member of Unlawful Assembly Cannot Escape Conviction By Claiming He Only Carried a Lathi and Struck No One: Allahabad High Court Jurisdiction Cannot Be Founded On Casual Or Incidental Facts If Not Have A Direct Nexus With The Lis: : Delhi High Court Clause Stating Disputes "Can" Be Settled By Arbitration Is Not A Binding Arbitration Agreement: Supreme Court State Cannot Plead Helplessness Against Sand Mafia; Supreme Court Warns Of Paramilitary Deployment, Complete Mining Ban In MP & Rajasthan Authority Cannot Withdraw Subsidy Citing Non-Compliance When It Ignored Repeated Requests For Inspection: Supreme Court Out-of-State SC/ST/OBC Candidates Cannot Claim Rajasthan's Reservation Benefits in NEET PG Counselling: Rajasthan High Court Supreme Court Upholds Haryana's Regularisation Of Qualified Ad Hoc Staff As 'One-Time Measure', Strikes Down Futuristic Cut-Offs

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