Upholding a verdict of the Calcutta High Court, the Supreme Court has ruled that an employer could dismiss an errant employee in exceptional cases, even if the worker was acquitted by a criminal court.
"Acquittal by a criminal court would not debar an employer from exercising power in accordance with rules and regulations in force," the Apex Court ruled, upholding dismissal of an Indian Oil Corporation employee by the company's management.
Terming the decision of dismissal as legal and lawful, a Bench, headed by Justice S N Variava, agreed with the observation of the High Court that 'these are the situations, which the person at the spot has to deal with. The authority on the spot is the best judge of the situation prevailing. It is he who has to assess the situation and take steps'.
Holding that it is well-settled that the burden of proving mala fide is on the person making the allegation and the burden is very heavy, the Bench, also comprising of Justice C K Thakker and Justice Tarun Chatterjee, said 'there is every presumption in favour of the administration that the power has been exercised bona fide and in good faith'.
"It is to be remembered that the allegations of mala fide are often more easily made than made out and the very seriousness of such allegations demands proof of a high degree of credibility," Justice Thakker, writing the judgement for the Bench, said.
Giving distinction between the departmental and criminal proceedings, the court said 'whereas the object of the criminal trial is to inflict appropriate punishment on the offender, the object of enquiry proceedings is to deal with the delinquent departmentally and to impose penalty in accordance with service rules'.
The court said strict rules of evidence and procedure would not apply to departmental proceedings and 'the degree of proof, which is necessary to order a conviction is different from the degree of proof necessary to record the commission of delinquency'.
Maintaining that in criminal law, prosecution has to prove 'beyond reasonable doubt' for conviction, the Bench said, 'in departmental enquiry, on the other hand, penalty can be imposed on the delinquent officer on a finding recorded on the basis of preponderance of probability'.
The court held the exercise of extraordinary power in exceptional circumstances, as was created by the worker in the instant case, could not be said to arbitrary, unreasonable or mala fide.
The ruling was delivered while dismissing an appeal of an IOL official of Haldia in West Bengal, who was removed from service for threatening, intimidating and assaulting a senior officer of the Refinery Hospital.
Without issuing him notice or seeking explanation for his act, the general manager, in exercise of his extraordinary power under the rules, was satisfied that it was not in the interest of the security of the Refinery and it staff to continue to employ the worker and passed the dismissal order.
