indian railway construction co.

VS

ajay kumar [2000 i-llj 1160 sc]

if a dismissal order is signed by an authority subordinate to the appointing authority will dismissal order be be invalid ?

-      government civil servants falling under the purview of article 311 of the consitution enjoy the protection that they cannot be dismissed by an authority below the rank of the appointing authority.

-      EMployees of government & private companies who fall outside the purview of article 311 are not protected and they can be dismissed by the competent disciplinary authority even if they are below the rank of the appointing authority.

uttar pradesh state road ransport corporation

vs

musai ram 1999 (3) lln 433 sc]

an employee demanded copies of all documents listed in the charge memo.  is the management obliged to give copies of all such documents ?

-      eventhough some documents may be referred to in the charge memo, if such documents are neither relevant to the charge nor referred to or relied upon by the authorities nor are necessary for cross-examination, non supply of such documents would not vitiate the disciplinary proceedings or be violation of the principles on natural justice.

rajendra kurup

vs

union of india 2000 i-llj 572 ker-hc]

-    can a disciplinary authority differ with the findings of the enquiry officer

-    if he does so, is he required to hear the chargesheeted employee again even if the rules do not stipulate so ?

when the disciplinary authority differes from the views of the enquiry officer, an opportunity to be heard must be given even when the rules are silent on the same. such a rule must be read into the rules for meeting the requirements of natural justice.

bank of india

vs

degala surya narayana 999(3)LLN 533SC]

-   can a disciplinary authority differ with the findings of the enquiry officer

-   if he does so, is he required to hear the chargesheeted employee again event if the rules do not stipulate so ?

in case the disciplinary authority differs with the enquiry officers findings, he has to record the reasons for the disagreement and then record his own findings derived solely from the evidence already on record.  

T sundara

vs

management seericulture CO-op. society 2000 (84) FLR 37 HC-kar]

     can an employee boycott the enquiry on grounds of non-payment of subsistence allowance ?

-      if subsistence allowance is not paid, he would be justified  in boycotting.

-      ex-parte enquiry and dismissal held improper

harichand

vs

director of school of education [1999 ii llj 694-Sc]

-   an employee who was convicted for two years imprisonment for a criminal offence was dismissed from employment

-   on his appeal he was released from prison under section 12 of the probation of offenders act 1958

-   on such release he demanded reinstatement

-   is it justified ?

-      the release under p.b. act 1958 does not remove the conviction, it merely removes the  imprisonment only.

-      for the purpose of employment his conviction stays and he is not justified in claiming reinstatement.