![]() Online edition of India's National Newspaper Monday, Mar 10, 2008 ePaper | Mobile/PDA Version |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| New Delhi |
![]() |
News:
ePaper |
Front Page |
National |
Tamil Nadu |
Andhra Pradesh |
Karnataka |
Kerala |
New Delhi |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Engagements |
Advts: Retail Plus | Classifieds | Jobs | Obituary |
New Delhi
New Delhi: Once it is found that all the procedural requirements have been complied with, courts should not ordinarily interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed on a delinquent employee, the Supreme Court has held. A Bench of Justices S.B. Sinha and V.S. Sirpurkar said: “The jurisdiction of the High Court in this regard is rather limited. Its power to interfere with disciplinary matters is circumscribed by well known factors. It cannot set aside a well-reasoned order only on sympathy or sentiments. The superior courts only in some cases may invoke the doctrine of proportionality.” Writing the judgment, Mr. Justice Sinha said: “If the decision of an employer is found to be within the legal parameters, the jurisdiction would ordinarily not be invoked when the misconduct stands proved. The High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution also cannot, on the basis of sympathy or sentiment, overturn a legal order.” In the instant case, Goparaju Sri Prabhakara Hari Babu, a technician, was dismissed from service on the ground that he was a habitual absentee from duty. On a petition from him, the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that principles of natural justice were violated since his explanation was not taken into consideration by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority. The present appeal by the Chairman and Managing Director of V.S.P. and others is directed against this judgment. Allowing the appeal, the Bench pointed out that the very charge was that the petitioner was a habitual absentee from duty and his absence was continuous one without prior sanction and in violation of the standing orders. The Bench noted that the employee in his explanation, in answer to the charge sheet, pleaded guilty to the charges.
Printer friendly
page
News:
ePaper |
Front Page |
National |
Tamil Nadu |
Andhra Pradesh |
Karnataka |
Kerala |
New Delhi |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Engagements |
|
|
|
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription Group Sites: The Hindu | The Hindu ePaper | Business Line | Business Line ePaper | Sportstar | Frontline | Publications | eBooks | Images | Home |
Copyright © 2008, The
Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of
The Hindu
|