Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“Recording of reasons in orders is equally important as giving an opportunity of hearing. The reasons in order means link between material which the forum considered while reaching the conclusion and reveals a rational nexus between the two.”
The Court noted that the report of Administrative Judge with regard to work and conduct of the petitioner was also without granting him an opportunity of being heard.
“While it is true that principles of natural justice supplement, and not supplant, the law, such principles have been declared by the Court to be a constituent feature of Article 14. Validity of any disciplinary action, whenever questioned, has to be tested on the touchstone of Articles 14, 16 and 21 as well as Article 311(2), wherever applicable.”
“Merely because the disciplinary authority has the power to order suspension, does not lead to the situation that he should be kept under suspension till the disciplinary proceedings are concluded.”
From the perusal of the reports received from State of West Bengal, it is observed that the petitioner was misusing his official position. The petitioner went to Kolkata without informing his seniors and without getting prior approval. He was posing himself as Gunman of purported President of District Congress Dal, Amritsar.
Supreme Court said that the High Court fell into grave error of law while interfering in the well-reasoned judgment rendered by the Tribunal whereby, the Tribunal had quashed the order imposing penalty upon the appellant.
Petitioner has taken a specific defence that his wife was seriously ill and was under medical treatment for a long time and ultimately, she passed away. The records of the departmental enquiry also suggested that the medical papers of the wife of the petitioner were duly placed on record. The enquiry officer failed to take this account to its proper perspective.
‘The reasoning given for a fresh inquiry was a mere lip service to the requirement of Rule 9(1) and was delightfully left in the realm of conjecture.’
The sealed cover procedure is to be resorted to only after issuance of the charge-memo/charge-sheet is issued.
By virtue of Rules 54(2) and 54(3), the petitioner is entitled to full pay and allowances for the period between 9-1-2020 to 29-9-2020 and his absence from service during the said period has to be treated as a period spent on duty for all purposes.
“Branding culture in the legal profession is detrimental to society. Ranking or providing customer ratings to lawyers is unheard of and demeans the ethos of the profession. Professional dignity and integrity must never be compromised especially in the legal profession.”
The Court was of the view there was no justification in approaching the Court to challenge the order of 2013 after a period of 5 years.
Supreme Court said that the officers of the Haryana Civil Service must be free from both ongoing and contemplated disciplinary proceedings to be eligible under Rule 9(1)(a)(iii).
Supreme Court said that allowing the orders of disciplinary authority and the appellate authority to stand, will be unjust, unfair and oppressive, as the charges were not just similar, but identical and the evidence, witnesses and circumstances were all the same.
“Sexual harassment in any form at the workplace must be viewed seriously and the harasser should not be allowed to escape from the clutches of law.”
“Departmental proceedings pending criminal trial would not warrant an automatic stay unless, a complicated question of law is involved. Also, acquittal in a criminal case ipso facto would not be tantamount to closure or culmination of proceedings in favour of a delinquent employee”
“If the records of the enquiry officer reveal that the findings are based on some evidence, it is not the function of the Court in a judicial review to re-appreciate the same and arrive at an independent finding on the evidence”.
“When even prisoners have fundamental rights and it has been declared by the Supreme Court that Part III of the Constitution does not stop at the prison gates, it would be ridiculous to suggest that the moment a person becomes a bank employee, he has to bid good-bye to Article 19(1)(a).”
Bombay High Court found the Labour Court and Industrial Court justified in refusing to exercise jurisdiction in the petitioner’s favour.