Legal Analysis on Charge-sheet Issuance and Dismissal

Explore the legal nuances of charge-sheet issuance and dismissal as analyzed by the court in a recent case. The court’s in-depth examination of the procedure, competency of authorities, and the concept of dismissal versus discharge provides valuable insights into the realm of service jurisprudence.


  • The employee was issued a charge-sheet on 31.12.1993 by the Deputy General Manager while working as an Aviation Officer.
  • Allegations included the presence of sand particles in fuel tanks after the employee’s duty hours, despite earlier inspections showing cleanliness.
  • A fresh charge-sheet was issued during the departmental proceedings.
  • The employee was discharged from service by the Director (Marketing) based on the report.
  • First charge-sheet punishment of ‘dismissal’ vitiated because Functional Director alone was competent to issue it.
  • Second charge-sheet punishment disproportionate to charge, necessitating remand for reconsideration.
  • Corporation granted liberty to issue fresh charge-sheet for first charge and pass lesser punishment for second charge.
  • Reinstatement ordered, back wages subject to outcome of fresh proceedings.
  • Employee was ‘discharged’ not ‘dismissed’ from service.

Also Read: Analysis of Intent in Fatal Assault Case


  • The High Court erred by concluding that the employee was dismissed from service, leading to a faulty determination on the charge-sheet’s validity.
  • The employee did not contest the DGM’s competence to issue the charge-sheet during the initial stages, hence the procedure was deemed correct.
  • The manual for delegation of authority issued on 15.12.1987 was never retracted and remained valid; the Functional Director was the proper authority for dismissal charges.
  • In service jurisprudence, ‘discharge’ and ‘removal’ are equivalent, indicating a service termination without punitive repercussions like dismissal.
  • The employee was duly compensated upon ‘discharge’, and the departmental proceedings had no flaws.
  • The employee had already reached retirement age by February 2018.
  • Two charge-sheets were issued to the employee and departmental proceedings were conducted.
  • The employee was given full opportunity of defense.
  • The punishment of dismissal for absence from place of duty one hour before duty hours was considered disproportionate, relying on relevant case law.
  • There is no standardized yardstick for proportionality of punishment, as it depends on the facts of each case.
  • Dismissal was deemed a major punishment under the Rules.
  • Corporation themselves opined that the charges were very serious.
  • The entire proceedings were vitiated, and back wages should have been granted while directing reinstatement.
  • A charge-sheet not issued according to law renders the entire proceedings non-est.
  • The lack of jurisdiction should have been raised at the very first instance and not for the first time before the High Court.
  • The employee did not raise objections regarding the competency of the DGM issuing the charge-sheet until the writ petition in the High Court.
  • If the Disciplinary Authority or the Competent Authority determines that any penalties should be imposed on the Management Staff, they have the authority to do so.
  • This authority to impose penalties on Management Staff applies regardless of the provisions in Rule G.
  • The first charge-sheet was issued by a competent authority, as established by the conclusion
  • The discharge order does not require any interference based on this conclusion

Also Read: Assessment of Compensation in Disability Case


  • Direction for issuance of fresh charge-sheet set aside as held unsustainable.
  • Direction for reinstatement and grant of back wages deemed academic and not requiring consideration.
  • Appeal by the appellant-Corporation allowed, appeal by the respondent-employee dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.

Also Read: Ensuring Fair and Thorough Police Investigations: A Legal Perspective


Case Number: C.A. No.-009778-009778 / 2010

Click here to read/download original judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *