THE STATE OF PUNJAB PSEB v. KULWANT SINGH INSC 878

The case of The State of Punjab PSEB v. Kulwant Singh, decided by the Supreme Court of India on 3rd October 2018, relates to the interpretation and application of service rules concerning the termination of an employee from public service.

Background and Facts of the Case Kulwant Singh was a lineman with Punjab State Power Supply Corporation, Ltd. . He was appointed on a temporary basis in 1996. During 2006, the corporation decided to regularize temporary employees subject to certain conditions laid down in the regularization policy. Under this policy, temporary employees who had completed a specified period of service and fulfilled other criteria would be considered for regular employment.

His case for regularization was considered, and he was held eligible under the policy. Before regularization could be effected, in 2008 an incident is alleged wherein Kulwant Singh is alleged to have been involved in misconduct pertaining to the tampering of meters, which is a serious offense in the context of power supply companies.

Proceedings in Lower Courts Action by Punjab State Electricity Board: On allegations of misconduct, the Superintendent, Punjab State Electricity Board, initiated disciplinary proceedings against Kulwant Singh. On the basis of the said inquiry, by an order dated 22nd February, 2010, the Board terminated his services.

Labour Court and Appellate Authority: Kulwant Singh challenged his termination before the Labour Court on the ground that the same was illegal and contrary to the regularization policy. The Labour Court decided in favour of Kulwant Singh that the termination was unjustified and directed his reinstatement with back wages.

High Court: Feeling aggrieved by the decision, the Punjab State Power Supply Corporation Ltd. knocked the doors of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The High Court reversed the judgment and decision of the Labor Court by maintaining the termination order on the grounds of serious misconduct and breach of trust, which are grave charges against a public servant.

Decision of the Supreme Court The matter finally reached the Supreme Court of India on appeal by Kulwant Singh against the High Court's decision. A number of issues thus propelled before the Supreme Court, which are basic in nature:

Regularization Policy vs. Misconduct: Whether Kulwant Singh's misconduct, as found by the inquiry, justified his termination despite being eligible for regularization under the policy.

Procedural Fairness: Whether the disciplinary proceedings and the inquiry against Kulwant Singh were in compliance with the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness.

Analysis and Ruling While making the judgment, the Supreme Court took into consideration:

Nature of Allegations: While appreciating the serious nature of allegations against Kulwant Singh pertaining to tampering of meters as it directly related to the working and integrity of the corporation.

Regularization Policy: Although Kulwant Singh was entitled to regularization, the Court held that mere eligibility under the policy does not immunize a person from disciplinary action where there is proved serious misconduct.

Procedural Fairness: Though the Court has scrutinized the conduct of disciplinary proceedings, it has come to the conclusion that Kulwant Singh was afforded sufficient opportunity to defend himself, and the inquiry has been properly conducted; the charges were established by evidence.

Public Interest: Having considered the nature of the employer, a public utility providing essential services, the Court paid special heed to the maintenance of discipline and the trustworthiness of those employed.

Conclusion In the ultimate decision, the Supreme Court upheld the termination of Kulwant Singh's services, thus setting aside the judgment of the High Court. The Court assessed that the charges of misconduct were serious and well-substantiated to warrant his termination, notwithstanding his eligibility for regularization. This case spells out equal balancing between the rights of employees and organizational discipline within the context of public service, where integrity and public trust are the cardinal factors.

This judgment of the Supreme Court lays down a precedent in service rules cases relating to grave misconduct and reiterates the principle that eligibility for regularization would not protect employees from such grave breaches of trust and misconduct committed in public service roles.