Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.26 seconds)
The Managing Director vs Sri B R Cheluvaraj on 22 January, 2021 cites

U.P. State Spinning Co. Ltd vs R.S. Pandey And Anr on 26 September, 2005

12. After considering its earlier judgments in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad (supra), Hiran Mayee Bhattacharyya v. S.M School for Girls reported in (2002) 10 17 SCC 293, U.P State Spinning Company Ltd. v. R.S Pandey reported in (2005) 8 SCC 264 and Union Of India v. Y.S Sadhu, reported in (2008) 12 SCC 30 held that when an order of punishment is set aside because of infirmities in the disciplinary proceedings, reinstatement cannot be ordered as a matter of course. The Court opined that whether an employer should be granted opportunity to hold an enquiry de novo or to complete the enquiry from the point that it stood vitiated depended on the gravity of the delinquency involved and the magnitude of the misconduct alleged. The Court observed further that the departmental enquiry should not generally set aside on the ground of delay in its initiation as such a power is de hors the limits of judicial review. In the event the Court or Tribunal exercises such power, it exceeds its power of judicial review at the very threshold. The Court, therefore, observed that normally a charge-sheet or show cause notice issued during the course of departmental proceedings cannot be quashed by the Court. The same principles were applicable where there is a delay in conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. The Supreme Court observed that the Court or Tribunal must consider all the relevant facts and balance and weigh the same so as to determine whether it is in the interest of clean and honest administration that the judicial proceedings should be allowed to be terminated on the ground of delay in their conclusion.
Supreme Court of India Cites 42 - Cited by 225 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Chairman Lic Of India & Ors vs A Masilamani on 23 November, 2012

In the case of Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors., v. A. Masilamani reported in (2013) 6 SCC 530 the Supreme Court considered the effect in service jurisprudence on the employment of a delinquent employee who has been subjected to a defective disciplinary enquiry. The employee in the aforesaid case was working with the LIC as a Higher Grade Assistant. He applied and obtained a housing loan from an institution to construct his house. He also applied for another housing loan from the LIC under the Corporation's Scheme. The loan was sanctioned after completion of all the requisite formalities. The Corporation thereafter noticed that there were certain irregularities and deviations with respect to the construction of the house and that the loan had been obtained from the LIC as a result of non-disclosure of the requisite facts. A charge- sheet was issued to the employee. He denied the charges 16 levelled against him. As the employee's explanation was not found to be satisfactory, a departmental enquiry was conducted against him. The report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer and a copy of the same was served on the employee with a notice to show cause. The reply was furnished by the employee and after considering the report as well as the reply the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment on the employee which had been proposed in the show cause notice of reduction in the basic pay to the minimum amount in the time scale. The statutory appeal available to the employee was dismissed after which he preferred a representation to the Chairman of the LIC. That appeal was also dismissed. Aggrieved by the order, the employee preferred a writ petition for quashing the enquiry proceeding and consequential orders. The writ petition was allowed by a learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court who observed that the enquiry was conducted in violation of the statutory rules applicable and in breach of the principles of natural justice. This was because the delinquent was not afforded an adequate opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. The High Court further held that the Appellate Authority had not applied its mind judicially and had merely concurred with the decision of the disciplinary authority. The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the LIC. Aggrieved by that order the LIC moved the High Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 365 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

Union Of India vs Y.S.Sadhu.Ex-Inspector on 22 September, 2008

12. After considering its earlier judgments in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad (supra), Hiran Mayee Bhattacharyya v. S.M School for Girls reported in (2002) 10 17 SCC 293, U.P State Spinning Company Ltd. v. R.S Pandey reported in (2005) 8 SCC 264 and Union Of India v. Y.S Sadhu, reported in (2008) 12 SCC 30 held that when an order of punishment is set aside because of infirmities in the disciplinary proceedings, reinstatement cannot be ordered as a matter of course. The Court opined that whether an employer should be granted opportunity to hold an enquiry de novo or to complete the enquiry from the point that it stood vitiated depended on the gravity of the delinquency involved and the magnitude of the misconduct alleged. The Court observed further that the departmental enquiry should not generally set aside on the ground of delay in its initiation as such a power is de hors the limits of judicial review. In the event the Court or Tribunal exercises such power, it exceeds its power of judicial review at the very threshold. The Court, therefore, observed that normally a charge-sheet or show cause notice issued during the course of departmental proceedings cannot be quashed by the Court. The same principles were applicable where there is a delay in conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. The Supreme Court observed that the Court or Tribunal must consider all the relevant facts and balance and weigh the same so as to determine whether it is in the interest of clean and honest administration that the judicial proceedings should be allowed to be terminated on the ground of delay in their conclusion.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 144 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Anant R Kulkarni vs Y.P.Education Society & Ors on 26 April, 2013

13. This view has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in the case of Anant R. Kulkarni v. Y.P Education Society reported in (2013) 6 SCC 515. However based on the facts in this case, where both the School Tribunal and the learned single judge of the Bombay High Court had found that the enquiry was conducted without complying with the rules applicable and had also exonerated the employee, the Supreme Court did not permit the employer to hold an enquiry de novo.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 262 - B S Chauhan - Full Document
1   2 Next