Skip to main content

Posts

Showing posts with the label department enquiry

Court can interfere with departmental authority’s unfair decision

High Court of Punjab and Haryana Praneet v. State of Punjab and Ors. MANU/PH/0142/2017 24.03.2017 Service Court can interfere with departmental authority’s decision, if inquiry is not conducted in a fair manner by following rules of natural justice Ratio: Inquiry has to be conducted in a fair manner by following rules of natural justice Instant writ petition has been preferred seeking to challenge findings of inquiry report and for writ in nature of certiorari to quash impugned order by which punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect has been imposed by Respondent No. 1. On basis of irregularities in voter list pertaining to village Mubarak which includes delay in sending record to office of State Election Commission, amongst another charge, Petitioner was served with a Memo. Petitioner submitted a detailed reply and brought factual aspect of matter to notice of authorities. Thereafter, a charge sheet was issued to the Petitioner at instance of State ...

In Departmental Proceedings, Inquiry Officer Is Quasi Judicial Officer

In Syed Mansoor Hasan Rizvi Vs Director, Local Bodies, the Allahabad High Court has held that the departmental proceedings are quasi judicial proceedings and the inquiry officer functions as quasi judicial officer. “He is not merely a representative of the department. He has to act as an independent and impartial officer to find out the truth,” said Justice Devendra Kumar Arora while quashing a dismissal order passed by inquiry officer in a departmental inquiry. “The major punishment awarded to an employee visit serious civil consequences and as such the departmental proceedings ought to be in conformity with the principles of natural justice. Even if, an employee prefers not to participate in inquiry the department has to establish the charges against the employee by adducing oral as well as documentary evidence. In case charges warrant major major punishment then the oral evidence by producing the witnesses is necessary,” said the court.

Communications Made In Course Of Disciplinary Proceedings Protected By Qualified Privilege

In Manik Lal Bhowmik Vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, the Calcutta High Court has held that a charge sheet issued against an employee in a disciplinary proceedings, the enquiry report and the letter of dismissal are protected by qualified proceedings, the enquiry report and the letter of dismissal are protected by qualified privilege. However, in the facts of the case two questions arise on the answer of which will depend the success or failure of this suit. Firstly, has the suit been filed within the time period specified in the Limitation Act, 1963? Secondly, assuming that the answer to the first question is in favour of the plaintiff, is the defence of absolute or qualified privilege available to the defendant? Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides that subject to the provisions contained in Sections 4 to 24, every suit instituted, appeal preferred and application made after the prescribed period shall be dismissed, although limitation has not been set up as a defence...

Procedure followed before forming opinion in disciplinary hearings

The Supreme Court in HP State Electricity Board Ltd vs Mahesh Dahiya, has observed that in disciplinary proceedings, before making opinion with regard to punishment which is to be imposed on a delinquent, the delinquent has to be given an opportunity to submit representation/reply on the inquiry report which finds a charge proved against the delinquent. A bench comprising Justice SA Bobde and Justice Ashok Bhushan made this observation while upholding a high court judgment setting aside the punishment order on a delinquent employee charged with willful absentation from official duty and disobeying the directions of the superiors. On the facts of the case, the court observed that before forwarding the copy of the report, the disciplinary authority had already formed an opinion to punish the delinquent with major penalty. The bench said that a delinquent employee is entitled to point out any defect in the procedure, a defect of substantial nature in appreciation of evidence, any misleadi...

Role of High Court in disciplinary or departmental proceedings

In State of Bihar Vs. Maharana Pratap Singh, the Hon'ble Patna High Court while setting aside the decision of a single judge bench held that the learned Single Bench appears to have exercised appellate jurisdiction over findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority, which is impermissible in law, since, while exercising the power of judicial review, only the decision-making process has to be examined and not the merit and demerit of the finding recorded by the Disciplinary Authority. The Court cannot re-appreciate the merits of allegation levelled against the charged officer and return a finding that the same is not made out. Govt. of A.P. v. Mohd. Nasrullah Khan (2006) 2 SCC 373 SCC p. 379, para 11.)” 9. In a recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran reported as (2015) 2 SCC 610, the Court held to the following effect:- “12. Despite the well-settled position, it...

Delay in dept. enquiry won't be vitiated when charges are serious

The Gujarat High Court has dismissed the writ application of a former branch manager of a Gramin Bank in Manishkumar Arjanbhai Patel v. Saurashtra Gramin Bank & two ors., who was removed from his service on the account of charges of misconduct and negligence in discharging his duties, stating that a delay, by itself, would not vitiate departmental inquiry as sometimes charges may be so serious that the issue of delay pales into insignificance. The decision taken by the court through Justice JB Pardiwala was arrived at after careful examination of the facts and after being assured that the procedure of inquiry was carried out in accordance with law. In this case, 21 charges were alleged against petitioner MA Patel while he was serving as the branch manager of Gramin Bank, Jamnagar. A departmental inquiry was instituted against him the result of which was that all the charges were established by the inquiry officer. The disciplinary authority, i.e. chairman, Jamnagar Rajkot Gra...

Dept. enquiry and criminal complaint can run simultanously

In ANJAN BISWAS vs CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA AND OTHER, the petitioner’s submission was that either a public employer not lodge a criminal complaint against an employee who is perceived to have committed a criminal offence and against whom a departmental action is  initiated; or, if a criminal complaint is lodged in respect of the same matters, the departmental action has to be suspended till the criminal trial is concluded. In reply while dismissing the Writ petition, the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court decided that - ........ 24. The life of law may be experience and not logic, but that does not imply that the law is illogical or asinine. That criminal matters are not disposed of in a hurry in this country is a matter of public knowledge and has been judicially recognised for decades. Notwithstanding the present fashion of even questioning the obvious and irrefutable by taking advantage of the rules of evidence, the judicial system cannot be mocked by suggesting the absurd. Whi...