Unauthorized Absence and Dismissal: Supreme Court’s Verdict on Rajasthan Housing Board Employee Case

The case of Rajasthan Housing Board v. Roshan Lal Saini & Ors. deals with the dismissal of an employee on grounds of unauthorized absence and alleged financial misconduct. The Supreme Court had to determine whether the dismissal orders issued by the Rajasthan Housing Board were legally valid and whether the respondent was denied a fair hearing in disciplinary proceedings.

Background of the Case

Roshan Lal Saini was employed as a Junior Accountant with the Rajasthan Housing Board. In August 2002, he was placed under suspension due to allegations of financial irregularities, unauthorized absence, and missing financial records amounting to Rs. 1.49 crore. Three criminal cases were filed against him from 1995 to 2002.

Following an internal investigation, two charge sheets were issued:

First charge sheet (October 2002): Related to financial misconduct and allegations of embezzlement.
Second charge sheet (November 2002): Accused him of willful unauthorized absence from duty since 31 August 2002.

Based on these allegations, on 3 January 2003, he was dismissed from service due to unauthorized absence under Rule 86(3) of the Rajasthan Service Rules. This dismissal order was challenged before the Labour Court.

Meanwhile, a second dismissal order was issued on 25 October 2013 based on an inquiry report dated 28 May 2012, which confirmed financial misconduct. The respondent challenged both dismissals in various legal forums, leading to a series of appeals and counter-appeals.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The Rajasthan Housing Board, representing the employer, argued:

The respondent was legally dismissed under Rule 86(3) due to willful unauthorized absence.
The second dismissal order (2013) was based on proven financial misconduct.
The Labour Court had already upheld the first dismissal order in 2015.
The employee failed to justify his unauthorized absence and did not file an appeal against the second dismissal order.
Since the respondent’s absence was prolonged and unapproved, the Housing Board had every right to terminate his services.

Respondent’s Arguments

The dismissed employee, Roshan Lal Saini, countered:

He was denied a fair opportunity to present his defense in the disciplinary proceedings.
The Rajasthan High Court had earlier ruled in his favor, questioning the fairness of the dismissal process.
The Housing Board failed to provide original financial records that allegedly supported the embezzlement charges.
The second dismissal order contradicted the first, making the entire process legally flawed.
His dismissal was politically motivated and intended to suppress internal corruption within the department.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court analyzed both dismissal orders and examined the legal framework of disciplinary proceedings under service rules. The key findings were:

The first dismissal (2003) for unauthorized absence had been upheld by the Labour Court and remained valid.
The second dismissal (2013) for financial misconduct was issued while the first dismissal was already in effect, making it redundant.
Disciplinary proceedings must follow due process, including providing the accused access to original financial records.
The Rajasthan High Court had failed to appreciate that the Labour Court had already upheld the first dismissal.
While financial irregularities were serious allegations, they needed to be adjudicated separately from the charge of unauthorized absence.

The Court observed:

“Once an employee is dismissed, any subsequent dismissal on different charges must be conditional upon the first dismissal being set aside.”

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled that:

The first dismissal (2003) remained valid and enforceable.
The second dismissal (2013) was legally redundant and could not be enforced.
The Rajasthan Housing Board may reopen the financial irregularities inquiry if the first dismissal is overturned.
The respondent had failed to establish procedural lapses that would justify overturning the first dismissal.

Impact of the Judgment

This ruling establishes several important principles in employment law:

Finality of disciplinary action: Employers cannot issue multiple dismissal orders unless the first dismissal is invalidated.
Unauthorized absence as a ground for dismissal: Prolonged and unapproved absence justifies termination under service rules.
Fairness in financial misconduct inquiries: Employers must ensure that disciplinary proceedings include access to necessary evidence.
Role of Labour Courts: Labour Courts have the authority to review dismissals but must adhere to prior legal rulings.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in this case clarifies the importance of procedural discipline in employment dismissals. By upholding the first dismissal while quashing the second, the ruling ensures that termination of employment follows due process. This case serves as a critical reference for service rules in the public sector, affirming that while financial irregularities require thorough investigations, multiple dismissals cannot be issued without proper legal sequencing.

Petitioner Name: Rajasthan Housing Board.
Respondent Name: Roshan Lal Saini & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Justice Sanjiv Khanna.
Place Of Incident: Jaipur, Rajasthan.
Judgment Date: 29-07-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Rajasthan Housing Bo vs Roshan Lal Saini & O Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 29-07-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Employment Disputes
See all petitions in Termination Cases
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Judgment by Mohan M. Shantanagoudar
See all petitions in Judgment by Sanjiv Khanna
See all petitions in partially allowed
See all petitions in Modified
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments July 2019
See all petitions in 2019 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category