Legal Reference Library

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.

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 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...

Every Internal Complaints Committee constituted under the provisions of Sexual Harassment of Women at Work Place (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 has to follow the principles of Natural Justice in conducting their enquiry, said the Court. Kerala High Court in L.S Shibu v Air India Limited &others has held that every internal complaints committee constituted under the provisions of Sexual Harassment of Women at Work Place (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 has to follow the principles of natural justice in conducting their enquiry. Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/sexual-harassment-women-work-place-internal-complaint-committee-follow-principles-natural-justice-kerala-hc/

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6774 of 2015 (@ SLP(C) NO. 16650 OF 2012) Poonam ... Appellant Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ... Respondents J U D G M E N T Dipak Misra, J. 14. First, it is necessary to understand about the concept of necessary and proper party. A Four-judge Bench in Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia v Additional Member Board 12 Page 13 of Revenue, Bihar and another2 has observed thus:- “7. ....it would be convenient at the outset to ascertain who are necessary or proper parties in a proceeding. The law on the subject is well settled: it is enough if we state the principle. A necessary party is one without whom no order can be made effectively; a proper party is one in whose absence an effective order can be made but whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision on the question involved in this proceeding. ” 15. In Vijay Kumar Kaul and others v. Union of India and others3 the court refe...

1) Mardia Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India, (2004) 4 SCC 311 2) Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Gurnam Kaur, (1989) 1 SCC 101 3)  Bhuwalka Steel Industries Ltd. v. Bombay Iron and Steel Labour Board, (2010) 2 SCC 273 4) Davinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2010) 13 SCC 88 5) United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon, (2010) 8 SCC 110 6) Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 2 SCC 782 7) I.R.Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2007) 2 SCC 1 8) Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694 9) Dev Sharan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2011) 4 SCC 769 10) K.T. Plantation (P) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka,(2011) 9 SCC 1 11) State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar,(2011) 10 SCC 404 12) Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority v. Devendra Kumar,(2011) 12 SCC 375 13) State of Orissa v. Mamata Mohanty, (2011) 3 SCC 436 14) S.G. Jaisinghani v. Union of India, AIR 1967 SC 1427 15) Nandini Sundar v. State of Chhattisga...