Anita Devi v. M/s Auro Spinning Mills & Ors.

Lastly, it was contended that even assuming the petitioner 7 ( 2026:HHC:5485 ) to be guilty of charge levelled against her then also punishment of dismissal from service imposed upon her is disproportionate to the allegations levelled against her. Reliance in support of this submission was placed upon following para of Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Limited and another versus Mukul Kumar Choudhuri and others.2: What

26. The doctrine of proportionality is, thus, well recognized concept of judicial review in our jurisprudence. is otherwise within the discretionary domain and sole power of the decision maker to quantify punishment once the charge of misconduct stands proved, such discretionary power is exposed to judicial intervention if exercised in a manner which is out of proportion to the fault. Award of punishment which is grossly in access to the allegations cannot claim immunity and remains open for interference under limited scope of judicial review. One of the tests to be applied while dealing with the question of quantum of punishment would be : would any reasonable employer have imposed such punishment in like circumstances? Obviously, a reasonable employer is expected to take into consideration measure, magnitude and degree of misconduct and all other relevant circumstances and imposing exclude punishment. In a case like the present one where the misconduct of the delinquent was unauthorized absence from duty for six months but upon being charged of such misconduct, he fairly admitted his guilt and explained the reasons for his absence by stating that he did not have any intention nor desired to disobey the order of higher authority or violate any of the Company's Rules and Regulations but the reason was purely personal and beyond his control and, as a matter of fact, he sent his resignation which was not accepted, the order of removal cannot be held to be justified, since in our judgment, no reasonable employer would have imposed extreme punishment of removal in like circumstances. The punishment is not only unduly harsh but grossly in excess to the matters before irrelevant 2Civil Appeal Nos. 5762-5763/2009, decided on 24.08.2009. 8 ( 2026:HHC:5485 ) allegations. Ordinarily, we would have sent the matter back to the appropriate authority for reconsideration on the question of punishment but in the facts and circumstances of the present case, this exercise may not be proper. In our view, the demand of justice would be met if the Respondent No. 1 is denied back wages for the entire period by way of punishment for the proved misconduct of unauthorized absence for six months.” Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, supported the impugned order passed by learned Industrial Tribunal. It was emphasized that petitioner had indeed committed an act of grave misconduct in terms of Standing Orders of the respondent. Disciplinary proceedings were justly initiated against her. The Inquiry proceedings were held and conducted as per law. The Inquiry Officer gave undue leverage to the petitioner by giving her repeated opportunities to defend herself even though the petitioner had apparently & adamantly refused to avail the same. Despite grant of opportunities time & again, petitioner did not meaningfully participate in the inquiry proceedings. The inquiry report was furnished to respondent No.1 which ultimately led to petitioner’s dismissal from service. The punishment of dismissal from service imposed upon the petitioner in the given facts and circumstances was justified. Prayer was made for dismissing the petition.

4. (a) Consideration With view to appreciate petitioner's allegations that genesis of the dispute actually lay in a molestation 9 ( 2026:HHC:5485 ) incident on 21.06.2020, following facts that are borne out from record need to be noticed:  The police visited the premises of respondent No.1 on 21.06.2020. The police was called not at the instance of petitioner but at the instance of respondent No.1 on account of nuisance created by her (as alleged by respondent No.1). Had the petitioner been molested as is alleged by her, she had ample opportunity that day itself to narrate such incident to the police. It is not her case that she reported about her alleged molestation to the police, this is despite the fact that her statement was recorded by the police on 21.06.2020. Statement of petitioner made before the Police on 21.06.2020 is otherwise available on record. In this background, respondent No.1's assertion that molestation allegations were not even narrated by the petitioner to the women officials of respondent No.1, also carry force.  It is also an admitted position that petitioner had visited the premises of respondent No.1 the next day as well i.e. 22.06.2020. Respondent No.1 did not allow the petitioner to enter the premises, statedly as per its Standing Orders but tried to handover to her, the suspension order. The petitioner refused to accept her suspension order. She again created problems, nuisance 10 ( 2026:HHC:5485 ) etc. The police had to be called again at the premises by respondent No.1. Record confirms this fact as statement of petitioner was again recorded by the police on 22.06.2020. Once again petitioner did not report her alleged molestation by official of respondent No.1.  Petitioner was examined by the doctor on

22.06.2020. She had the opportunity to inform about her alleged molestation to the doctor. The MLC recorded by the doctor does not mention any such narration by the petitioner. It can safely be presumed that petitioner did not report any such incident to the doctor.  The disciplinary proceedings initiated by respondent No.1 against the petitioner continued. Charge- sheet was issued to her on 25.06.2020. It was two months later that the petitioner filed a complaint before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalagrh, District Solan, H.P. on 27.08.2020 with allegations of her having been molested & requested registration of F.I.R. Pursuant to the directions issued by Court, F.I.R. No.41/2020 was registered on 08.10.2020. In the given facts and circumstances, stand of respondent No.1 that petitioner's allegation of molestation were false, concocted and well planned counter blast to the disciplinary proceedings already initiated against her by respondent No.1 w.r.t her misconduct, cannot be lightly 11 ( 2026:HHC:5485 ) brushed aside. During hearing, it was apprised that the police has filed cancellation report on 07.04.2021 in the aforesaid F.I.R, which is statedly under consideration. Considering these developments, this aspect of the matter is left at that so that case of either party relating to F.I.R is not prejudiced before the concerned Court. (b) Following tabulation made available by learned counsel for respondent No.1 throws light on the second issue i.e. conduct of inquiry proceedings:- “Date Event 25.06.2020 A show cause notice/ chargesheet was served to Anita Devi. She had to reply to that in 48 hours which she did not. This notice is Ex. RW-I/D at page 79 of the record. On the same date a demand notice served by Anita and proceedings initiated by her before Labour Commissioner -cum- Conciliation officer. 07.07.2020 Kalandra proceedings initiated against Anita Devi before SDM Nalagarh. The complaint is at page 101 of the record.

01.08.2020 Letter regarding initiation of inquiry against Anita Devi. The same is EX.RW-I/ E at page 91 of the record. On this date Sh. Hardesh Sharma Advocate was also appointed. His Appointment letter is at page 93 of the record.

03.08.2020 Notice regarding inquiry on 12.08.2020. The same is Ex. RW-2/C at page 95 of the record.

12.08.2020 Anita Devi was not present in the inquiry but was present at the main gate of the factory, and inquiry was next scheduled for 21.08.2020. Notice dated 12.08.2020 is Ex. RW2/D at page 110 and report dated 12.08.2020 is Ex. RW2/ E at page 111-112 of the record.

21.08.2020 Anita Devi was present along with her daughter and objected to the inquiry proceedings and left without signing the report. Page 113-115 of the record 12 ( 2026:HHC:5485 ) contains the notice dated 21.08.2020 and the report.

31.08.2020 Anita Devi was present along with her daughter and asked whether she wants a defence assistant or not. She declined the same vide letter dated 31.08.2020 i.e. Ex. RW2/F at page 118. She was also informed regarding the evidence to be conducted on 09.09.2020. Page 116- 117 contains inquiry report dated 31.08.2020.

09.09.2020 Anita Devi was not present on the said date and an opportunity given to her to be present on the next date i.e. 25.09.2020. She also sent an e-mail to the management on this date regarding the inquiry, and that she would not join the same. Letter by the management dated 12.09.2025 to Anita Devi regarding this E-mail is at page 120-122 of the record.

14.09.2020 Notice given to Anita Devi regarding inquiry scheduled for 25.09.2025. The same is at page 119 of the record.

25.09.2020 Anita Devi not present in the inquiry. She was again given an opportunity to be present on 14.10.2020. Notice and report dated 25.09.2020 at page 123- 124 of the record.

29.09.2020 An e-mail sent to Anita regarding inquiry scheduled on 14.10.2020. 08.10.2020 F.I.R No. 41/2020 registered against the company on the basis of an application under section 156(3) of Cr.PC by Adv. Nivedita alleging molestation.

14.10.2020 Anita Devi proceeded ex-parte as not being present on the said date.

16.10.2020 Proceedings initiated by Anita Devi on 25.06.2020 before labour commissioner were closed on the basis of a letter by the Joint labour commissioner, while relying on inquiry report dated 21.08.2020.

25.10.2020 Inquiry report was prepared which is Ex. RW2/G at page 125-142 of the record.

28.10.2020 A Second show cause notice sent to Anita Devi. The same is Ex. RW1/G at page 144-148 of the record. 13.11.2020 Reply submitted to the second show cause notice by Anita alleging 13 molestation. ( 2026:HHC:5485 )

24.11.2020 Dismissal letter of Anita Devi prepared. The same is Ex. RW1/H at page 149-151 of the record.” I have perused the record of the learned Labour Court including related to the inquiry proceeding. The record reflects due opportunity of hearing given to the petitioner. At every stage, efforts were made by the Inquiry Officer to associate the petitioner with the inquiry proceedings, to defend herself. Petitioner remained present on few hearings, and depending upon her whims and fancies chose not to attend many other hearings. The record shows number of opportunities given to the petitioner time and again by the Inquiry Officer. On failure to avail the opportunities, Inquiry Officer had no option but to culminate the proceedings ex- parte on the basis of record before him. After appreciating the case, the Inquiry Officer held that misconduct had been proved against the petitioner. The inquiry report was accepted by the disciplinary authority and petitioner was dismissed from service. In the given facts, there is no good ground to interfere with the inquiry proceedings & the report. (c) The third issue raised by the petitioner concerns the punishment of dismissal imposed upon her. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the punishment of dismissal upon the petitioner is disproportionate to 14 ( 2026:HHC:5485 ) charge levelled against her. That the only accusation against the petitioner is her remaining absent from duty for a day. Learned Counsel placing reliance upon Chairman- cum-Managing Director, Coal India Limited2 prayed for quashing the punishment order. Petitioner had created nuisance in the premises of respondent No.1 on 21.06.2020 as also on 22.06.2020. Instant is not a case where petitioner remained unauthorizedly absent from duty for a day as has been projected by her learned counsel. It is a case where the petitioner had created ruckus and nuisance in the premises of respondent company on two consecutive days. She had committed major misconduct. Furthermore with a view to deflect disciplinary proceedings, she had levelled allegations of her molestation by the officials of respondent No.1. The veracity of these allegations could not be demonstrated by the petitioner from the record of this case. Rather, the evidence on record, prima-facie suggests that these allegations were well thought of plan to avoid disciplinary proceedings. The respondent had alleged not just gross misconduct, not mere absence, but prolonged refusal to work on part of petitioner, physically attacking other female staff, and making false molestation allegations with proceedings on those molestation charges still pending before the Competent Court. After reviewing the facts, the 15 ( 2026:HHC:5485 ) learned Tribunal held that principles of natural justice were fully followed in the inquiry, that the punishment was proportionate to the mayhem created by her on the premises and that the molestation proceedings remained undecided. Taking into consideration the judicial review jurisdiction in such like matters restricted to jurisdictional errors, procedural lapses, or violations of natural justice, without re-appreciating evidence or substituting penalties (Reference: Rangali Hydro Electric Project Odisha v. Giridhari Sahu3; Krishnadatt Awasthy v. State of M.P.4 and B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India5), instant is not a case where any interference is called for.

5. Accordingly, there is no merit in this petition & same is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. March 03, 2026 yogesh Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 3(2019) 10SCC 695 4(2025)7 SCC 545 5(1995) 6SCC 749