In a notable case concerning employment rights and administrative justice, a petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the termination of a long-serving employee of the Shipping Corporation of India (SCI). The petitioner, who had served SCI since 1987 and held the position of Section Head, alleged that his dismissal was retaliatory, following his prior legal actions against the corporation.

The petitioner initially raised concerns about significant financial losses at SCI through a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) but was advised to withdraw it due to his vested interest as an employee. Following this, he filed a writ petition questioning the appointment of a new director, which was dismissed because he had already been terminated by the time of the ruling. His termination on April 13, 2017, prompted the current petition, seeking reinstatement and compensation for alleged victimization.

The termination was based on charges of repeated unauthorized absenteeism from December 2008 to May 2011. The disciplinary process began with a charge-sheet issued in April 2012, followed by an inquiry where the petitioner submitted medical documents to justify his absences. However, the inquiry report found that the medical evidence accounted for only 26 days of absence, whereas the total unauthorized leave cited exceeded 350 days.

The petitioner argued that the disciplinary actions were motivated by malice due to his legal pursuits against SCI, claiming a lack of fair hearing and procedural justice. He contended that the inquiry was led by individuals with bias against him, thereby violating principles of natural justice.

In defense, counsel for SCI argued that the disciplinary procedures adhered to established protocols, including the issuance of a show cause notice, the appointment of an inquiry officer, and adequate opportunities for the petitioner to defend himself. The order detailing the termination was described as thorough and clear, indicating that the petitioner had failed to provide justifications for the majority of his absences.

The court noted that mere allegations of bias or malice were insufficient to overturn the disciplinary decision. It emphasized the importance of a clear and documented process in employment disputes, highlighting that claims of unfair treatment must be supported by concrete evidence.

Upon reviewing the facts, the court determined that proper procedures were followed throughout the inquiry process. The absence of sufficient explanations for the majority of the alleged unauthorized leaves substantiated the decision to terminate. The court dismissed the petition, stating that no legal grounds existed for granting compensation or taking action against the employer.

This case serves as a critical reminder of the complexities surrounding employment law, particularly in public sector entities. It underscores the necessity for employees to provide comprehensive evidence when contesting disciplinary actions and the importance of adhering to procedural fairness in administrative proceedings. The ruling reaffirms the principle that legal actions taken by employees do not exempt them from scrutiny regarding their professional conduct.