Disciplinary authorities must be very careful before imposing the severest form of punishment of dismissal from service as it has a devastating effect not only on the dismissed employee but also on their dependent family members, the Supreme Court has said.A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N Kotiswar Singh said dismissal from service must remain reserved for cases where the misconduct is of the most serious nature where elements of synthetic consideration would be undesirable and inappropriate.The Bench set aside the Bombay high Court’s order that had upheld dismissal of Surekha Domaji Bele – an employee of the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (MSEDCL) – in 2017 on the basis of show-cause notice issued in 2008.“Dismissal is ordinarily justified where the misconduct is of such gravity that continuance of the employee would be wholly incompatible with discipline, trust or institutional functioning. Cases involving corruption, illegal gratification, moral turpitude, misappropriation, acts causing substantial loss to the employer, or conduct showing complete unfitness for continued service stand on a different footing,” the Bench said in its June 11 verdict.“However, where the misconduct does not involve corruption, moral turpitude, financial misappropriation or proved loss to the employer, and where there is long service without much blemish, the disciplinary authority must carefully examine whether any lesser punishment would meet the ends of justice,” it clarified in its verdict on Bele’s appeal.Describing dismissal from service as one of the harshest forms of punishment, the top court said it must only be imposed by the disciplinary authority after duly considering relevant factors such as the nature and gravity of the misconduct, long service rendered, record, age, absence of financial loss to the company, etc.It held that the period of suspension pending inquiry can’t be imposed as a second punishment over and above dismissal.The top court directed the MSEDCL to issue a proper show-cause notice to appellant Bele on the penalty to be imposed other than dismissal and determine her claim for subsistence allowance in two parts.From September 4, 2006, to March 3, 2006, the authority shall consider the original reporting condition if leave of absence was granted, etc. but for the remaining period, she shall be eligible for subsistence allowance irrespective of the punishment to be imposed, it said.“In the absence of any order reviewing or validly continuing the suspension beyond six months being shown on record, the Appellant shall be treated as eligible for subsistence allowance for the period after 03.03.2007 till 12.07.2017,” it ordered.