Good Morning

Friday, June 12, 2026

NEWS TODAY 12.06.2026

Staff dismissal only for grave violations like corruption: SC

Insubordination, Indiscipline Not Reasons Enough For Sacking’

Dhananjay.Mahapatra@timesofindia.com 12.06.2026

New Delhi : Supreme Court on Thursday has 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 “corruption, illegal gratification, moral turpitude, misappropriation of funds, proved losses to employer, public scandal or conduct bringing the organisation to disrepute”, an employee could not be visited with the extreme penalty of dismissal.

“The 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...,” 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.

“It does not lead merely to the loss of the existing source of income for the employee but also for the dependent family members,” the court added. Justice Singh said being fired left a “permanent stigma” on a person’s service record and may impair future employment prospects, “particularly in public employment, statutory bodies, public sector undertakings and other regulated establishments where antecedents and service record are material”.

“For 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,” 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. SC said being fired left a ‘permanent stigma’ on an individual’s service record and may impair future employment prospects

NMC flipflops, puts onus on minister for patient appeals

5 Months Ago, Panel Had Said Will Hear Pleas

Rema.Nagarajan@timesofindia.com 12.06.2026

National Medical Commission (NMC) continues its flipflop over whether patients and their families should be allowed to file appeals before it. The commission decided in Sept 2024 that its ethics board would entertain all appeals, including those filed by nonmedicos, and confirmed this decision in Dec 2025. Five months later, in May, the commission’s ethics section claimed any interpretation of NMC Act’s provisions ought to be done by health ministry. “NMC had agreed that all appeals received by EMRB will be entertained. Further, as regards action not being taken by State Medical Councils on complaints filed by non-medicos even after issuance of reminders by the boards, it was decided to send acommunication by EMRB to State Medical Councils to complete the process in a timebound manner.

In case of failure by the concerned SMC to act upon, EMRB may take over the complaint/matter from the SMC and dispose the same. This is noted by EMRB, and board will proceed further accordingly,” state minutes of the 16th meeting of NMC held on Sept 3, 2024, which were confirmed in the 17th meeting on Dec 16, 2025. However, NMC chairperson Dr Abhijat Sheth, when asked why NMC, as an autonomous body, was seeking health ministry’s interpretation for what was decided in the NMC meeting, claimed wider stakeholder consultation and examination of statutory/regulatory provisions was going on. He added “NMC has not framed a SOP in this regard yet”. When the ministry was asked to intervene on behalf of patients to allow appeals before NMC, the ministry stated the commission was the apex statutory body constituted under NMC Act, 2019, for regulating medical education and profession in the country. “All matters relating to framing, amendment, and implementation of medical education regulations fall within the domain of NMC,” stated the ministry response.

“There would be issues if unrestricted appeals are allowed and the members/experts are also deliberating regarding the need for a filtering mechanism. Meanwhile, patients and complainants are not left without remedies. They can also avail other legal remedies under applicable civil, criminal or consumer laws,” said Sheth.

Since Sept 2020, when NMC was constituted, it has received 273 patient appeals against decisions of SMCs that have all been rejected. That’s barely 55 complaints a year or roughly one a week on average which, the chairperson claims, needs a filtering mechanism. NMC initially insisted that only doctors had the right to appeal before it. However, clause 8.8 of the ethics regulation of 2002, which is still in force, clearly allows patients and their families to appeal before NMC. The incorporation of this clause in the regulation was the result of a Supreme Court order.