Conduct & Disciplinary Rules – 41

Case Law on Conduct rules   

31. The High Court of Calcutta (1986 (I) LLJ 95) in the case of S. Amar Nanoy Chowdry Vs Union of India and others held “it would be legal to start disciplinary proceedings against Railway servants for alleged misconduct of coop society etc. The appellant has become the Secretary of the Coop society only as a Railway servant”         

32. In the case of Management of Ashok Leyland Ltd Vs Presiding Officer, III Addl Labour Court Meerat ( 1995 (I) LLJ 887) the Madras High Court held – “ An anti-social act of that individual official for good reason can be found to be misconduct affecting the public interest and thus the interest of the employer as well”      

33. In Dyani’s case ( 1963 (I) LLJ 684 SC ) the Supreme Court expressed the view that – “ the supreme court has never found anything wrong in the case of an employer taking action against the employee for such acts of employees which are outside the service conditions but which affect the society at large and employer in particular”

34. The Supreme Court in the case of Orissa Cement Ltd Vs Habibulla (1960 (I) LLJ 522) held that “it would be difficult to accede to the argument that if the evidence given by an employee in an industrial adjudication is disbelieved that itself without anything more would constitute misconduct”     

35.  In another case the Supreme Court held (1978 (I) LLJ 508) – “that the private quarrel between an employee and a stranger with which the employer is not concerned falls outside the category of misconduct”     

36.  The High Court of Kerala (1985 (II) LLJ 88) has held – “that even criticism of an employer by an employee couched in moderate language been held not to amount to misconduct. No authority is entitled to treat the exercise of a fundamental right (of making adverse comments in the press) as misconduct”          

37. The High Court of Madras ( 1991 (I) LLJ 344 ) has held that – “ an order of transfer made in violation of the service rules need not be obeyed and noncompliance with such order cannot result in disciplinary action”           

38. The Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India Vs. J. Ahamed (AIR 1979 SC 1022) had held as under – “it is however, difficult to believe that lack of efficiency or attainment of highest standard in the discharge of duty attached to public office would ipso-facto constitute misconduct. There may be negligence in performing of duty or error of judgment in evaluating the developing situation but that would not constitute unless the consequences directly attributable to negligence would be such as to irreparable or the resultant damage would be so heavy that the degree of culpability would be very high        

39. The High Court of Calcutta had held (1992 (II)LLJ 698 ) that – it would not be right for the work man to operate the newly installed equipment without being trained in that behalf. If on account of such understanding and feeling they refuse to obey the orders of their supervisors, it cannot be said that they wilfully refused to obey lawful and reasonable orders of their supervisors” 

40. The High Court of Bombay in S.A. Kerker Vs SUN PO IT and others (1996 (I) LLJ 675) has held that – “merely securing a wrong or false medical certificate by itself does not amount to misconduct. The certificate of the doctor may be false due to ignorance or incompetence and therefore a wrong or false certificate does not necessarily create delinquency either on the doctor or on the person who produced it”

Where an employee has participated in a strike which is not illegal, it is not an unbecoming act on his part nor does it amount to lack of devotion to duty.

[ Suraj Prasad v. Northern Railway, AIR 1967 All. 457.]