Whether employer should advise employees about service rules?

The learned Tribunal as well as the High Court granted the relief
to respondent No. 4 on the ground that the department ought to
have informed and/or advised the employee with respect to the
seniority to be fixed on the basis of rotaquota
rule and as the

department failed to do so, respondent No. 4 cannot be denied
his legitimate right to be placed at an appropriate place in the
seniority list, as otherwise also he was selected for a promotion in
the LDCE quota also. On the aforesaid terms, the learned
Tribunal as well as the High Court are not justified in directing to
put respondent No. 4 in the seniority list above the appellant
who, in fact, was appointed in the LDCE quota and the
respondent No. 4 never accepted his promotion in the LDCE
quota. It was for the employee to know the rule. The department
was not expected to advise and/or tell the employee about how
the seniority will be fixed and/or about the rotaquota
rule.
NONREPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7779 OF 2012

P. Subramaniyam Vs Union of India


M. R. Shah, J.
Dated:March 15, 2019.

Print Page

Whether performing second marriage without permission of govt will amount to misconduct?

Having held so, we are clearly of the view that the

punishment imposed upon the petitioner is grossly disproportionate

to the misconduct committed by him. We must keep in mind the

fact that the petitioner had already rendered 18 years of service

before he contracted into the second marriage. He was terminated

after he had completed almost 20 years of service. In the reply,

there is no allegation that there was any other complaint against

the petitioner. No doubt, his act of marrying a second time without

seeking permission of the Government is misconduct but can it be

said that this misconduct is so severe that he should be dismissed 

from service which would mean that he would virtually be entitled

to no pensionary or other benefits.

8. The petitioner has pleaded that he was not aware of

the provisions of Rule 21 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules. Ignorance of

law is no excuse but at the same time, we cannot ourselves ignore

the hard truth that a large number of employees are not aware of

the details of the rules. Whatever be the case, the petitioner is a

person who served the BSF for about 20 years and the allegation

against him is that he misconducted himself by contracting a

second marriage while his first spouse was living. This is not a

criminal offence of bigamy because the personal law permits such

conduct. Misconduct is the technical misconduct in not seeking

permission of the authorities concerned. We are, therefore, of the

opinion that though the misconduct of the petitioner is serious

enough to warrant his non-continuation in service but it is not so

serious as to warrant forfeiture of all his service benefits.

THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA

A G A R T A L A

WP(C) 588 OF 2015

Ghulam Nabi Shergujri V The United of India,

BEFORE

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. DEEPAK GUPTA

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA

Dated: 04.4.2016.

Print Page

Whether punishment not prescribed in service rules can be awarded to employee?

Integrity meant soundness of moral principle or character, fidelity, honesty, free from every biasing or corrupting influence or motive and a character of uncorrupted virtue. It was synonymous with probity, purity, uprightness rectitude, sinlessness and sincerity. The charge of negligence, inadvertence or unintentional acts would not culminate into the case of doubtful integrity. Withholding integrity merely did not cause stigma, rather made the person liable to face very serious consequences. Unfortunately, a too trivial matter had been dragged un-proportionately which had caused so much problems to the Appellant. There was nothing on record to show as to whether the alleged delinquency would fall within the ambit of misconduct for which disciplinary proceedings could be initiated. Undoubtedly, in a civilized society governed by rule of law, the punishment not prescribed under the statutory rules could not be imposed.

REPORTABLE

Supreme Court of India

Vijay Singh vs State Of U.P.& Ors. on 13 April, 2012

Bench: B.S. Chauhan, Jagdish Singh Khehar

Print Page