1

RHONE-POULENCE (INDIA) LTD

Vs

STATE OF UP

2000(II)LLJ 1402 [SC] 

1

2

3  

4

5

ORDERS OF TRANSFER ISSUED BY REGIONAL MANAGER WHO WAS NOT THE COMPETENT OFFICER 

WORKER DID NOT OBEY

 
LATER COMEPTENT OFFICER WROTE TO HIM

 
DISCIPLINARY ACTION TAKEN AND PUNISHED FOR NOT OBEYING REGIONAL MANAGERS

ORDER

 ORDER CHALLENGED

1 

2

3

DISOBEDIENCE OF AN ORDER FROM A PERSON NOT COMPETENT TO ISSUE THE SAME WILL NOT AMOUNT TO MISCONDUCT

DISCIPLINARY ACTION TAKEN AGAINST HIM IS NOT MAINTAINABLE

SUBSEQUENT ORDER WILL NOT RATIFY THE INITIAL WRONG ORDER

2

S.T.SALIAN

Vs 

SYNDICATE BANK 

2000 (86) FLR-2

[HC-KAR]

1

 2

AS PER BANK RULES DISCIPLINARY ACTION COTNINUED AFTER NORMAL DATE OF SUPERANNUATION AND EMPLOYEE NOT RELIEVED FROM SERVICE. 

IS HE ENTITLED FOR TERMINAL BENEFITS FOR PERIOD OF DETENTION BEYOND

SUPERANNUATION 

EMPLOYEE IS ENTITLED FOR SALARY AND BENEFITS FOR THE PERIOD OF DETENTION BEYOND DATE OF SUPERANNUATION.

3

M.C.CHARATI 

 Vs

PERSONNEL MANAGER SYNDICATE BANK & OTHERS

 2001 (1) LLN 590

[HC - KAR]

CAN THE QUANTUM OF PUNISHMENT FOR A PRESENT OFFENCE TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE PAST RECORD OF THE EMPLOYEE WITHOUT GIVING HIM AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN THE BACK GROUND OF THE PAST RECORD OF PUNISHMENTS. 

PAST RECOND CANNOT BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN DECIDING PUNISHMENT FOR PRESENT MISCONDUCT, UNLESS THE EMPLOYEE HAS BEEN ISSUED A NOTICE THAT HIS PAST RECORD OF SERVICE WOULD ALSO BE CONSIDERED IN THE DETERMINATION OF PUNISHMENT FOR THE CURRENT DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.

4

RAMASWAMY PALLEDAR

Vs

SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF DELHI

2000(86) FLR 682 [HC-DEL]

1

2

3

4

AN EMPLOYEE CHALLENGED HIS TERMINATION BY FILING A CIVIL WRIT PETITION

WHEN THE WRIT WAS DISMISSED HE RAISED A DISPUTE UNDER I.D.ACT

MANAGEMENT CONTENDED THAT AS PER THE DOCTRINE OF ELECTION THE I.D. IS NOT MAINTAINABLE

IS THIS CONTENTION VALID  ?

1

2

AS PER THE DOCTRINE OF ELECTION, WHEN A PERSON HAS MORE THAN ONE LEGAL FORUM TO CHALLENGE A PARTICULAR ORDER AND HE ELECTS TO CHOOSE ONE OF THEM, HE IS THEREAFTER PRECLUDED FROM CHOOSING THE OTHER FOR THE SAME COURSE OF ACTION.

SINCE THE HIGH COURT HAD GIVEN A SPEAKING ORDER IN THE WRIT PETITION, THE PRINCIPLE OF ELECTION WILL APPLY AND THE REMEDY OF RAISING AN I.D. WILL NOT BE AVAILABLE TO THE PETITIONER.

RAMESH CHANDRA TIWARY 

Vs 

BIHAR STATE SUGAR CORPORATION

2000(87)FLR 803 [HC-PAT]

IF IN A GIVEN CASE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY ACTS AS THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, WILL THE DISCIPLINARY ACTION SUFFER FROM ANY INFIRMITY ?

1

2

QUOTING THE PRINCIPLE LAID DOWN BY THE SUPREME COURT IN THE SURJIT GHOSH CASE [1995 (70) FLR 817 SC] THE PATNA HIGH COURT HELD: 

IF BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY PERFORMING THE FUNCTIONS OF THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHO-RITY AN EMPLOYEE IS DEPRIVED OF HIS SUB-STANTIVE RIGHT OF APPEALING AGAINST THE DISCIPLINARY ACTION, IT WOULD AMOUNT TO DISCRIMINATION AND AMOUNT TO VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE.