Inadequate Explanation Under Section 313 CrPC Cannot Be Foundation For Conviction If Prosecution Fails To Prove Case: Allahabad High Court No-Confidence Motion In Housing Societies Fails If 2/3 Majority Not Met; Fractions In Voting Threshold Cannot Be Rounded Down: Bombay High Court Successor Rent Controller Cannot Re-Appreciate Evidence Or Act As Appellate Court Under Review Jurisdiction: Delhi High Court Restores Eviction Order Article 21 Overrides PMLA Section 45 Rigors In Cases Of Unduly Long Incarceration Without Trial: Calcutta High Court Grants Bail To SSC Scam ‘Middleman’ Unregistered Family Partition Deed Recording Past Oral Arrangement Doesn't Require Compulsory Registration: Gujarat High Court Private Banks Acting As Authorised Dealers Under FEMA Amenable To Writ Jurisdiction; Can Refuse Transactions For 'Sanctions-Related' Concerns: Gauhati High Court Non-Examination Of Investigating Officer Not Fatal To Prosecution Case If Eyewitness Testimony Is Credible & Trustworthy: Jharkhand High Court Mere Denial Of Signature Insufficient When Execution Is Proved Through Endorsements: Karnataka High Court Restores Specific Performance Decree Sectarianism Claims Can't Discredit Reliable Testimony Of Child Sexual Abuse Victim: Kerala High Court Upholds Madrassa Teacher's Conviction State Must Prove Specific 'Public Interest' To Exempt Projects From Social Impact Assessment Under Section 10A Land Acquisition Act: Telangana High Court Or 2 Rule 2 CPC |Failure To Seek Specific Performance In Earlier Injunction Suit Bars Subsequent Claim; Readiness & Willingness Must Be Continuous: Madras High Court Exoneration In Departmental Proceedings Does Not Result In Automatic Discharge In Criminal Case: Orissa High Court History Sheet Can Be Opened On 'Reasonable Belief' Even Without Conviction, But Must Be Reviewed After 7 Years Of Good Conduct: Rajasthan High Court

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