Reinstatement Required Where Disciplinary Action for Misconduct Is Based on No Evidence and Disproportionate Penalty

The Petitioner, Eastern Coalfields Limited (ECL), challenged an award dated May 20, 2024, passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT), Asansol.

The Respondent No. 4, Sunil Majhi, a General Mazdoor, was dismissed on March 13, 2015, following a domestic enquiry for allegedly attempting suicide by jumping into a pit shaft, thereby violating safety regulations and the company's Standing Orders.

The CGIT set aside the dismissal, finding the enquiry perverse and directing reinstatement without back wages.

ECL moved the High Court via a writ petition, arguing that the workman had admitted misconduct during the enquiry and that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by interfering with a proved penalty.

1. Whether the findings of the Tribunal regarding the perversity of the domestic enquiry were legally sustainable.

2. Whether the penalty of dismissal was disproportionate to the alleged misconduct in light of the evidence on record.

The Court primarily relied on the principles of judicial review in disciplinary matters as articulated in The State of Rajasthan Ors. v. Heem Singh (2020), which distinguishes between the "rule of restraint" and the "jurisdiction to interfere" when findings are based on no evidence or suffer from perversity.

The Court applied the standard of "preponderance of probabilities" for departmental proceedings rather than "proof beyond reasonable doubt".

The Court emphasized the principle of "proportionality" in service jurisprudence, allowing courts to interfere when a penalty is disproportionate to the weight of the evidence.

Statutory references included the Coal Mines Regulations, 1957 (Regulations 38 and 190) and the Certified Standing Orders of ECL (Clauses 26.3, 26.15, 26.22, and 26.26).

The Court observed that the disciplinary authority failed to produce independent evidence to support the charges, relying solely on a contested admission by the workman.

The Tribunal found that the management failed to prove the existence of adequate fencing or safety walls around the pit, suggesting the incident was an accident rather than a willful violation of safety rules.

The Court held that while judges usually exercise restraint, interference is mandatory when an enquiry is based on "no evidence," as was the case here.

The Court reasoned that the management's failure to examine any witnesses during the enquiry rendered the findings perverse and violative of the principles of natural justice.

Consequently, the High Court determined that the decision of the CGIT was not a substitution of view but a necessary correction of a flawed process.

The Court affirmed the CGIT’s award, directing the reinstatement of Sunil Majhi with all consequential benefits (treating the absence as dies non) but without back wages.

The writ petition (WPA 28677 of 2025) was dismissed.