Mrgirish Bhushan Goyal vs Bhel on 17 September, 2014
"15. Therefore, in view of the principle laid down by this Court in the above
referred case, we are of the opinion that dismissal order served on the appellant
just 6 days prior to his retirement date is exorbitant and disproportionate to the
gravity of misconduct particularly, because he was not involved in active
collusion with the other employees of the Company who were involved in this
incident, for causing financial loss to the respondent-Company but was
negligent by an act of omission. We also should not lose sight of the fact that
the appellant took steps to retrieve the materials which were due against the
Bill from the suppliers which rectified the error. Accordingly, the order of
dismissal served on him is liable to be quashed and is accordingly, quashed.
However, we cannot lose sight of the fact that his negligence has caused
financial loss to the respondent-Company. Therefore, keeping at par with the
punishment awarded to Sh. B.S. Rana on ground of misconduct in terms of
demotion to lower grade for 3 years as per letter dated 6.6.2011 from Central
Public Information Officer, we award the similar punishment of deduction of one
year increment on the appellant as per Rule 23 (b) of the BHEL Conduct Rules
Page No.# 9/10
since the appellant already reached the age of superannuation when the order
of dismissal was served on him. Accordingly, the Civil Appeals arising out of SLP
(C) Nos.30883-30884 of 2012 are allowed."