Substantive Provisions Require Strict Compliance In Disciplinary Proceedings, Test Of Prejudice Applies In Case Of Procedural Violations: Kerala HC

The Division Bench comprising Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice P. Krishna Kumar observed:

“When reviewing disciplinary action against employees, Courts and Tribunals should consider whether violations of rules or regulations are substantive or procedural. Violation of substantive provisions, such as those related to competency of the authority imposing punishment, requires strict compliance, and thus the test of prejudice has no role. Procedural violations, on the other hand, should be examined to determine whether they prejudiced the employee's ability to defend himself. If prejudice is found, the order has to be set aside."

The Court added that additional consideration should be given to whether the provision is mandatory or directory. The Court further said that even in cases of mandatory provisions, if the employee has waived any requirements of the provision, the disciplinary action would be null and void. The Court further elaborated this by saying that an employee can waive a mandatory procedure aimed to benefit him, he cannot waive a provision that serves a public purpose.

Background

The petitioner was an employee at Kerala State Beverage Corporation (KSBC). He was dismissed from service after conducting a formal enquiry on the charges that he misappropriated Rs. 2,26,335 while working in the retail shop of KSBC by falsifying and manipulating the sale records. An FIR was also registered against him for offences under Sections 409, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.

The petitioner challenged the enquiry proceedings on the following grounds – the charge memo and memorandum of allegations are vague and imprecise, details of misappropriation are not mentioned in the charge or memorandum of allegations, the enquiry officer appointed after the charge was issued, that too without waiting for the explanation of the petitioner against the charge memo, the entire enquiry proceedings were finished in a day, petitioner's request for engaging a lawyer and for getting copies of documents were not allowed.

The Court while examining the allegations found that though the charge memo could have been more detailed, it provides sufficient information to defend the disciplinary proceedings. The Court on examining the documents found that the petitioner was provided with the document – a letter from the Managing Director of KSBC, based on which the charge was framed. The Court noted that the grievance of the petitioner was that he was not given the document in advance so as to cross-examine the witness. However, the Court said that the petitioner did not make any request to postpone the examination of the witness to another day.

The Court could not find any prejudice to the accused based on any of the procedural discrepancies alleged by him. Thus the Court observed that considering the gravity of the charges proved against the petitioner, dismissal was a proportionate punishment.

Accordingly, the petition was dismissed

Also read: Undue Leniency In Disciplinary Proceedings Compromises Discipline In Public Service: Kerala HC Upholds Dismissal Of Employee For Misappropriation

Counsel for Petitioner: Advocates A.Jayasankar, Manu Govind

Counsel for Respondent: Standing Counsel P C Sasidharan

Case Title: P N Saji v Kerala Public Service Commission 

Case No: OP(KAT) NO. 439 OF 2020

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 69