Courts & Tribunals While Reviewing Disciplinary Actions Against Employees Must Consider Whether Violations Are Substantive Or Procedural: Kerala HC

The Kerala High Court emphasised that the Courts and Tribunals while reviewing disciplinary actions against employees, must consider whether violations of Rules or Regulations are substantive or procedural.

The Court emphasised thus in an Original Petition filed by an employee challenging the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him.

A Division Bench of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice P. Krishna Kumar observed, “When reviewing disciplinary actions against employees, Courts or Tribunals should consider whether violations of rules or regulations are substantive or procedural. Violation of substantive provisions, such as those related to the competency of the authority imposing punishment, typically 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. Otherwise, no interference is necessary.”

The Bench added that the Courts must consider whether the procedural provisions are mandatory or directory and even if the provisions are mandatory, if the employee has waived any requirements of the provision by conduct, the disciplinary action will not become null and void.

Advocate A. Jayasankar represented the Petitioner while Advocate (Standing Counsel) P.C. Sasidharan represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the Petitioner an Assistant Grade II, in the service of the Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC) while he was working on deputation in the Kerala State Beverages Corporation (KSBC). The allegation against him was that he had misappropriated Rs. 2,26,335/- while working in a retail shop of KSBC at Bison Valley in Idukki District by falsifying and manipulating the sales records.

After the formal enquiry, the Petitioner was found guilty and was awarded with a punishment of dismissal from service. Against the Order of dismissal, he approached the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (KAT), but it evoked no positive result. Resultantly, he was before the High Court.

Reasoning

The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, noted, “… an employee can waive the requirement under a mandatory procedure only if it is aimed to benefit him. If the procedural provision serves a public purpose, the question of waiver is out of place. The ultimate test is whether the employee received a fair hearing.”

The Court further enunciated that a fair hearing necessitates that the accused be informed of the charges and supporting allegations, giving him a chance to deny guilt and establish innocence and he must also be permitted to defend himself by cross-examining opposing witnesses and presenting his own testimony or witnesses.

“… at the conclusion of the enquiry, the disciplinary authority must provide the delinquent employee with a copy of the enquiry report if the authority and the inquiry officer are not the same, before imposing punishment by accepting the report. This enables the employee to respond to the findings in the report”, it said.

The Court elucidated that, since the disciplinary authority/employer has the discretion to depart from the inquiry officer's opinion, this opportunity is crucial for the employee to present his case before the employer.

“If the disciplinary authority omits this step, the procedure is irregular, even if an opportunity was given at the stage of imposing the punishment. However, the court should intervene only if the irregularity caused actual prejudice to the employee and not simply because of the procedural lapse”, it added.

The Court also observed that, while disciplinary actions seriously affect the individual rights of the employee, if undue leniency is shown, it would compromise the essential discipline required in the public service and ultimately undermine the very administrative system.

“The governing principles in disciplinary actions aim to strike a balance between two key objectives: affording the employees a fair opportunity to defend their innocence and ensuring that justice is served to the employer as well for maintaining discipline within the public service and the administrative systems”, it said.

Moreover, the Court clarified that in disciplinary proceedings for misappropriation of funds, subsequent payment will not absolve the delinquent of the misconduct, unless he proves that the omission was due to a bonafide mistake despite the exercise of due care and attention.

“Considering the gravity of the charges proved against him, the punishment of dismissal is certainly proportionate and commensurable to the wrong done by the petitioner”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Original Petition.

Cause Title- P.N. Saji v. Kerala Public Service Commission (Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:5997)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocates A. Jayasankar and Manu Govind.

Respondent: Standing Counsel P.C. Sasidharan

Click here to read/download the Judgment