![\"Staff](\"https:\/\/static.toiimg.com\/thumb\/msid-131668957,imgsize-109334,width-400,height-225,resizemode-4\/3500-pils-pending-in-sc-the-oldest-for-42-yrs-law-ministry.jpg\" "\\"File")
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\nNEW DELHI: Supreme Court on Thursday said that a long-standing employee cannot be dismissed from service for indiscipline, insubordination or disobedience and such a penalty must be reserved for cases of corruption, moral turpitude or mala fide actions causing loss to the employer.A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N K Singh said it was not making light of the importance of discipline at the workplace, but in the absence of \u201ccorruption, illegal gratification, moral turpitude, misappropriation of funds, proved losses to employer, public scandal or conduct bringing the organisation to disrepute\u201d, an employee could not be visited with the extreme penalty of dismissal.\u201cThe punishment must bear a reasonable relationship with the gravity of the misconduct, the past service record, the surrounding circumstances and the impact of the misconduct on the establishment…,\u201d the bench said.Rescinding the 2017 order firing an employee of Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd, SC pointed out that a dismissal permanently severs the employee-employer relationship and deprives the employee of their retirement benefits.\u201cIt does not lead merely to the loss of the existing source of income for the employee but also for the dependent family members,\u201d the court added.Justice Singh said being fired left a \u201cpermanent stigma\u201d on a person\u2019s service record and may impair future employment prospects, \u201cparticularly in public employment, statutory bodies, public sector undertakings and other regulated establishments where antecedents and service record are material\u201d.\u201cFor this reason, dismissal must remain reserved for cases where the misconduct is of the most serious nature where elements of sympathetic consideration would be undesirable and inappropriate,\u201d Justice Singh said.Considering the 21 years of service rendered by the employee, who is now past retirement age, the bench directed the authorities to reconsider the nature of the penalty that ought to be imposed on her for the alleged indiscipline, insubordination, disobedience and destruction of official documents.<\/div>\n