Reference:

Question

Held

SK SING

VS

CENTRAL BANK OFINDIA [1997(i) llj 537 sc-db]

IN ECIL VS KARUNAKAR [1994 ILLJ 162] THE SUPREME COURT HAD ORDERED THAT A COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT SHOULD BE FURNISHED AND THE REPRESENTATION TO IT BE CONSIDERED BEFORE ANY PUNISHMENT ORDERS IS ISSUED AGAINST A DELINQUENT. WOULD FAILURE TO SUPPLY THE SAME MAKE THE ACTION FATAL?

MANY COURTS HAD HELD THAT IT WOULD BE FATAL AND ORDERED REVERSAL OF THE DISCIPLINARY PUNISHMENT. IN THIS LATEST JUDGEMENT THE SUPREME COURT HAS MODIFIED THE POSITION. THE PRESENT POSITION IS THAT EVEN IF THE REPORT IS NOT FURNISHED IT WOULD NOT BE FATAL. COURTS SHOULD CALL UPON THE EMPLOYEE TO SHOW WHAT PREJUDICE. HE HAS SUFFERED BEFORE PASSING AN ORDER OF REJECTING OR UPHOLDING THE DISCIPLINARY ACTION.

STATE BANK OF PATIA

VS

SK SHARMA [1997 LLR 268 SC-DB]

IN AN ENQUIRY THE MANAGEMENT HAD REFUSED TO GIVE THE PRELIMINARY REPORT OR PRE-RECORDED STATE-MENT OF SOME WITNESSES DEMANDED BY THE DELINQUENT WOULD THIS VITIATE THE DISCIPLINARY ACTION.

AS THESE WITNESSES WERE EXAMINED AT THE ENQUIRY AND OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN FOR THEIR CROSS EXAMINATION, NO PREJUDICE HAS BEEN CAUSED, HELD NOT VITIATED.

VIJAYA KUMAR NIGAM

VS

STATE OF MP [1997 (77) FLR 8 SC-DB]

CAN THE STATEMENT OF A CO-ACCUSED BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN ADJUDGING THE GUILT OF ANOTHER ACCUSED.

THIS IS NOT EVIDENCE IN THE STRICT SENSE UNDER THE EVIDENCE ACT.  BUT THE EVIDENCE ACT IS NOT APPLICABLE TO DOMESTIC ENQUIRIES AND HENCE THIS KIND OF EVIDENCE CAN BE RELIED UPON IN DOMESTIC ENQUIRY.

INDIAN OIL CORPORATION

VS

ASHOK KUMAR ARORA [1997 (75) fLR 949 SC-DB]

WHAT IS THE EXTENT AND SCOPE OF THE POWERS OF HIGH COURTS TO INTERFERE IN DISCIPLINARY PUNISHMENTS UNDER ARTICLE 226

WHILE THE SUPREME COURT HAS WIDE POWERS TO HEAR A CASE AS AN APPEAL AND GO INTO ALL ASPECTS OF DISPUTE UNDER ARTICLE 136,

THE POWERS OF THE HIGH COURTS TO INTERFERE UNDER ARTICLE 226 IN DISCIPLINARY MATTERS IS RESTRICTED AND LIMITED. HIGH COURTS CAN INTERFERE ONLY IF THE FOLLOWING IS MADE OUT:

1)       WHEN ENQUIRY IS VITIATED DUE TO NON-OBSERVANCE OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE 

2)       FOR DENIAL OF A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY FOR PUTTING UP A DEFENCE.

3)   OR WHEN FINDING IS BASED ON NO EVIDENCE

4)       THE PUNISHMENT IS DISPROPORTIONATE TO THE OFFENCE PROVED.

STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA

VS

DR RK DIWAKAR [1998 ILLJ-344-SC-DB]

MUST A CHARGE SHEET BE ISSUED BY THE DISCI-PLINARY AUTHORITY.  CAN AUTHORITY BELOW THE RANK OF THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY WILL ISSUE IT. A CHARGE MEMO ISSUED BY A LOWER AUTHORITY BE INVALID?

. WHILE A PUNISHMENT ORDER MUST BE ISSUED ONLY BY THE DULY NOTIFIED DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY A CHARGE SHEET COULD BE ISSUED BY ANY LOWER AUTHORITY ESPECIALLY WHEN THERE IS A PROPER DELEGATION OF POWER TO SUCH LOWER AUTHORITY

B BALAKRISHNAN REDDY

VS

ELECTRICITY BOARD (APSEB) [WRIT PETITION NO.16852/1991 DELIVERED IN JANUARY 1998]

CAN THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY ORDER A FRESH ENQUIRY AFTER THE ENQUIRY OFFICER HAS SUBMITTED THE REPORT HOLDING THE EMPLOYEE NOT GUILTY

THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY CANNOT ORDER A FRESH ENQUIRY - THIS WOULD AMOUNT TO HARASSMENT.

THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY COULD HOWEVER WRITE A DIFFERENT FINDING BASED ON THE RECORDS OF THE FIRST ENQUIRY AND COURTS WOULD UPHOLD A DIFFERENT FINDING IF IT IS A SPEAKING ORDER.