Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2019 (12) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (12) TMI 1509 - SC - Indian LawsRight of the employer to exercise disciplinary control over an employee - Whether in a revision Under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, arising out of conviction, the High Court could have, even while affirming the conviction, taken away the right of the employer to exercise disciplinary control over an employee, on the basis of the conviction by the criminal court? HELD THAT:- The case on hand is one where the Respondent secured an order from the High Court, behind the back of his employer that his conviction will not have an impact upon the service career of the Respondent. The High Court did not have the power to pass such an order. If at all, the High Court could have invoked, after convicting the Respondent, the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, so that the Respondent could take shelter, if eligible, Under Section 12 of the said Act. In this case, the High Court ventured to do something which it was not empowered to do. Therefore, the Respondent cannot take umbrage Under Section 362 of Code of Criminal Procedure The second reason why the argument of the learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent is fallacious is that the Respondent himself was a beneficiary of what he is now accusing the Appellant of. It is true that the Respondent entered service way back in the year 1985 and it may certainly cause serious prejudice, if the conviction Under Section 498-A Indian Penal Code at the instance of his daughter-in-law also shakes the very foundation of his employment. But the Respondent can certainly seek protection against such action only before an appropriate forum, if and when the employer chooses to initiate any action. It is not necessary that the employer in all such cases will invariably initiate disciplinary proceeding. The employer may certainly take note of the long service rendered by the Respondent, apart from the fact that the conviction had nothing to do with the discharge of his duties officially - But the High Court, in a revision arising out of conviction, could not have sealed the right of the employer to take action on the basis of conduct which led to the conviction of an employee, within the parameters of the service Rules. Appeal allowed.
|