Conduct & Disciplinary Rules – 40

Case Law on Conduct rules

26. The Supreme Court provided the definition of the word “misconduct” in the following terms in State of Punjab Vs Ramsingh (1993 (I) LLJ220) “thus it could be seen that the word “misconduct” though not capable of precise definition, its reflection receives its connotation from the context, the delinquency in its performance and its effect in the discipline and the nature of duty. It may involve moral turpitude, it must be improper or wrong behaviour, unlawful behaviour, wilful in character, forbidden act, a transgression of established and definite rule of action or code of conduct but not mere error of judgment carelessness or negligence in performance of the duty, the act complained of bears forbidden quality of character. Its ambit has to be construed with reference to the subject matter and the context wherein the term occurs, regard being had to the scope of the statute and the public purpose it seeks to serve.

27. The High Court of Allahabad in the case of I.M.P.F Moradebad Vs Labour Court Meerat (1995 (I) LLJ 1222) explained the concept of “misconduct” in the following terms “obviously any conduct on the part of an employee inconsistent with the faithful discharge of his duties towards his employer can fall within the ambit of misconduct unless it be of trifling nature. A misconduct on the part of an employee obviously has to be in respect of some positive act or of conduct which would be quite incompatible with any express or implied term of relationship of the employee with the employer”

28.In the case of Glaxo Laboratories (P) Ltd Vs Labour Court and another ( 1984 (I) LLJ 14) the Supreme Court held that an employee cannot be charge sheeted in respect of an act of misconduct which is not provided for in the certified standing orders. Non enumerated misconduct cannot form subject matter of disciplinary action”         

29. In the case of A.L.Kilara Vs Project and Equipment corporation of India Ltd (1984 III) ll) 186) the Supreme Court expressed as below “where misconduct when proved entails penal consequences, it is obligatory on the employer to specify and if necessary define it with precision and accuracy so that any ex-post facto interpretation of some incident may not be camouflaged as misconduct.   

30. According to Bombay High Court in the case of A.A. Fernandes Vs Modern Mills Ltd and others (1990 (I) LLJ 538) “ an employee, however old or senior in service has no right to defy the orders of his superior whatever be his grievances