2019 (12) TMI 1509 - SC - Indian Laws

Right 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.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Refusal of the High Court to recall an order affecting the service career of an individual convicted under Section 498-A IPC.
2. Jurisdiction of the High Court in revision arising from conviction to impact employer's disciplinary control.
3. Interpretation of Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
4. Application of Section 362 of the Code in altering or reviewing judgments.
5. Employer's right to take disciplinary action based on employee's criminal conviction.

Analysis:

1. The case involved an appeal against the refusal of the High Court to recall an order affecting the service career of an individual convicted under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. The employer, a company, challenged the High Court's decision that the conviction would not adversely impact the employee's service career.

2. The central issue was whether the High Court, in a revision arising from conviction, had the authority to restrict the employer's right to exercise disciplinary control over an employee based on a criminal conviction. The Supreme Court clarified that the High Court's revisional jurisdiction is limited to reviewing the correctness, legality, or propriety of lower court orders and does not extend to altering civil consequences of a conviction.

3. Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empower the High Court to oversee lower courts' decisions but do not grant authority to absolve individuals from civil consequences of criminal convictions. The Court emphasized that the purpose of revisional power is to rectify errors of jurisdiction or law, not to interfere with employer-employee relations.

4. The Court addressed the application of Section 362 of the Code, which limits a court's power to alter or review judgments. It noted that while the section restricts revisiting judgments for clerical errors, inherent powers under Section 482 can be invoked to set aside orders that violate principles of natural justice or abuse the court's process.

5. The judgment highlighted the employer's right to take disciplinary action based on an employee's criminal conviction, emphasizing that the employer could consider factors like long service and job performance. The Court ruled that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by preemptively safeguarding the employee's service career without legal basis, ultimately allowing the employer's appeal and overturning the High Court's order.