Legal Reference Library

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...

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...

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...

The Supreme Court in State Bank of India & Ors. Vs. Neelam Nag, has held that pendency of a criminal case against an employee cannot be the sole basis to suspend the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him/her for an indefinite period. In the instant case, a complaint for criminal breach of trust was lodged against a bank employee in February 2007. In September 2008, the competent authority initiated departmental inquiry against her. Contending that Clause 4 of the Memorandum of Settlement, which grants protection to bank employees from facing departmental proceedings until the completion of the trial of the criminal case, the delinquent employee approached the High Court against initiation of disciplinary proceedings. A Single Bench order staying disciplinary proceedings until conclusion of criminal trial was later modified by the Division Bench observing that the authority would be free to proceed further in the disciplinary proceedings as soon as the case from the prosecu...

The Supreme Court, in CHAMOLI DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. VS. RAGHUNATH SINGH RANA has reiterated that the compliance of principles of natural justice by the Employers in Disciplinary proceedings is not a mere formality, especially when the statutory provisions specifically provides that disciplinary proceedings shall be conducted with due observations of the principles of natural justice. Dismissing an appeal against the High Court judgment which had quashed the Dismissal order against a bank employee, the bench comprising of Justices Abhay Manohar Sapre and Ashok Bhushan observed that, imposing of any penalty on an employee of the bank that too major penalty of dismissal from service can only be done after following the statutory provisions governing the disciplinary proceedings. In a reported judgment penned by Justice Ashok Bhushan, the bench observed: “When the Inquiry Officer was appointed, conducting of the inquiry was mandatory and without conducting of an inquiry and witho...