CHENNAI METROPOLITAN WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD & Ors. v. T.T. MURALI BABU

remaining unauthorisedly absent from duty from A 28.8.1995, and thereby committed misconduct under Regulations 6(1) and 6(2) of the Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and, Sewerage Board Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1978. On 1.4.1997 he reported to duty with the medical certificate for the period B 28.8.1995 to 31.3.1997. The enquiry officer found that the charges were proved. The disciplinary authority by order dated 16.4.1998 imposed the punishment of dismissal from service. The departmental appeal filed by the respondent was dismissed. However, the single Judge c of the High Court allowed his writ petition, set aside the punishment of dismissal and directed his reinstatement with continuity of service but without back wages holding that the punishment of dismissal from service for ~he first time desertion/absenteeism was too harsh and disproportionate. The Division Bench of the High Court declined to interfere. 0 Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 In the instant case, the medical certificate E was belatedly submitted and the respondent had remained unauthorisedly absent from 28.08.1995. The Inquiry Officer found that both the charges had been proved. The disciplinary authority had ascribed reasons and passed an order of dismissal from service. Further, there has been delay of 4 years by the respondent in invoking the extraordinary jurisdictio·n of the· High Court. From the decision rendered by the single Judge as well as that of the Division Bench of the High Court, it is clear that there has been no advertence with regard to the G issue whether the charges levelled against the respondent had been proved or not. The only aspect which was really proponed before the High Court pertains to the nature of charges and proportionality of punishment. [para 10 and 12) [998-C-E; 999-C-D] F H 990 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 1 S.C.R. A

1.2 The doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside. A writ court is required to weigh the explanation offered and the acceptability of the same. The court should bear in mind that it is exercising an jurisdiction. As a extraordinary and equitable B constitutional court it has a duty to protect the rights of the citizens but simultaneously it is to keep itself alive to the primary principle that when an aggrieved person, without adequate reason, approaches the court at his own leisure or pleasure, the court would be under legal c obligation to scrutinize whether the lis at a belated stage should be entertained or not. Be it noted, delay comes in the way of equity. Delay does bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis. In the case at hand, though there has been four years' delay in approaching the court, yet the writ court chose not to address the same. It is the duty of the court to scrutinize whether such enormous delay is to be ignored without any justification. That apart, in the instant case, such belated approach gains more significance as the respondent-employee being absolutely careless to his duty and nurturing a lackadaisical attitude to the responsibility had remained unauthorisedly absent on the pretext of some kind of ill health. In the considered opinion of this Court, such delay does not deserve any indulgence and on the said ground alone the writ court should have thrown the petition F overboard at the very threshold. [para 16) [1001-C-H; E 0 1002-B-C] Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Ba/want Regular Motor Service, Amravati and others, 1969 G SCR 808 =AIR 1969 SC 329; and Lindsay Petroleum Co. v. Prosper Armstrong Hurd. Abram Farewal/, and John Kemp, (1874) 5 PC 221, State of Maharashtra v. Digambar, 1995 (1) ~uppl. SCR 492 = (1995) 4 sec 683; and State of M.P. and others etc. etc. v. Nandlal Jaiswal and others etc. etc. 1987 (1) SCR 1 = AIR 1987 SC 251 - referred to. f-< CHENNAI METROPOLITAN WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD v. T.T. MURALI BABU 991

2.1 Doctrine of proportionality in t.he context of A imposition of punishment in service law gets attracted when the court on the analysis of material brought on record comes to the conclusion that the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the court. [para 27] B [1006-F-H]