Proceedings When employee
absented in the enquiry even after notice, ex-parte enquiry will be justified.
Chairman-cum-M.D., Coal India
Ltd. and Ors. vs. Ananta Saha & Ors. 2011 LLR 673 (SC)
Vague charges in the charge sheet
will render the enquiry and dismissal invalid.
Where disciplinary authority
choose to differ with Enquiry Officer’s finding, employee must be given an
opportunity of personal hearing before any action.
Anil Gilurker vs. Bilaspur-Raipur
Kshetriya Gramin Bank & Anr. 2011 LLR 1121 (SC)
It is for the employer to prove
the misconduct in the court when he chooses to dismiss employee directly
without enquiry.
Amar Chakravarty & Ors. vs.
Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. 2011 LLR 1 (S.C.)
Refusal of summoning defence
witnesses and documents by the enquiry officer in the absence of justification
and relevance stated by the employee, will not render enquiry invalid.
State Bank of India & Ors.
vs. Bidyut Kumar Mitra & Ors. 2011 LLR 561 (S.C.)
If employee absents from enquiry
without information to EO even after three chances are given and enquiry held
exparte, cannot be said to be vitiated. It is not the duty of the enquiry
officer to find out
from the management whether any
intimation was received from the employee about enquiry.
S.B.I. vs. Hemant Kumar. 2011 LLR
449 (S.C.)
Punishment of demotion with
promotion bar for seven years is appropriate for the misconduct of financial
irregularity by bank employee. Even the reviewing authority of the bank should
not have interfered with the punishment of removal from service and reduced it.
State Bank of Mysore & Others
etc. vs. M.C. Krishnappa. 2011 LLR 857 (S.C.)
Issuing charge sheet after the
employee was relieved and VRS accepted in all respects, is untenable in law.
Such action is totally opposed to settled principles of law.
G. Mallaiah vs. A.P. State
Handloom Weavers Co-Operative Society Ltd. and Another. 2011 LLR 986 (AP HC)
Having believed the misconduct,
tribunal ought not to have disturbed the punishment given by corporation. In
domestic enquiry guilt of employee has to be established on preponderance of
probabilities and degree of proof is not that of beyond reasonable doubt.
Life Insurance Corporation of
India vs. General Secretary & Anr. 2011 II CLR 271 (Guj. HC)
In the matter of disciplinary
proceedings High Court is only concerned about the decision making process
rather than on the merits of the proceedings.
S. Singaravelu vs. General
Manager, Southern Railways, Chennai and Anr. 2011 LLR 35 (Mad. HC)
Conclusion drawn by the enquiry
officer on the basis of undisclosed facts and circumstances and not on evidence
will make the enquiry vitiated.
Shyamal Kumar Sarkar vs. Bangiya
Gramin Vikas Bank and Another. 2011 LLR 78 (Cal. HC)
When workman conceded that
disciplinary enquiry against him was fair and proper, court can't declare it
unfair.
Rachappa vs. Managing Director,
North-East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation, Gulbarga. |2011 LLR 63 (Karn.
HC)
In departmental enquiry, it is
not necessary that the charges have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt as in
court of law. What is required in enquiry is preponderance of possibility.
Sanat Kumar Vijjan vs. UCO Bank
& Ors. 2011 LLR 85 (Uttrakhand HC) ; 2011 LLJ (II) 74
Punishment of dismissal would be
illegal on the charge of negligence not framed in the charge sheet. EO
exonerated the employee from the charges of embezzlement leveled against the
employee.
Kashmira Singh vs. Punjab State.
2011 LLR 155 (P & H HC)
Employee can't claim subsistence
allowance from the employer during the period of de novo inquiry in the court.
Mumbai Cricket Association vs. Pramod
G. Shinde. 2011 I CLR 745 (Bom. HC)
When principles of natural
justice are not followed and Inquiry Officer was biased, civil courts will have
jurisdiction to intervene.
Delhi Transport Corporation vs.
Subhash Chand. 2011 (128) FLR 707 (Del. HC)
Onus of proof that inquiry was
not fair was on the workers' union which had to prove the allegation made by
it.
Federal Mogul Bearing India Ltd.
vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. LLJ (I) 2011 P. 605 (HP HC)
Enquiry vitiated when enquiry
officer performs the role of prosecutor by cross examining the witnesses of
both the parties. Requisite degree of impartiality is expected to be maintained
by EO in enquiry.
C.R. Das-I Alias Chittaranjan Das
vs. Personal Manager, Jute Corporation of India & Anr. 2011 LLR 529 (Cal.
HC)
Enquiry conducted in a one go in
single day without examining material witnesses can't be held to be proper and
legal.
U.P. State Road Transport
Corporation, Jhansi vs. Mohd. Ahmad and Another. 2011 LLR 926 (Allahabad HC)
Over work is no licence to
negligence. Domestic enqury can't be held to be unfair on ultra technical and
trivial defects.
Managing Director, U.P.S.R.T.C.,
Lucknow and Others vs. Har Prasad Pathak and Another. 2011 LLR 930 (Allahabad
HC)
When the workman was acquitted in
criminal trial by giving benefit of doubt, initiation of domestic enquiry after
such acquittal cannot be stayed on the ground of delay.
Om Prakash-II vs. Delhi Society
for Prevention of Cruetly to Animals & Ors. 2011 LLR 614 (Delhi HC)
When disciplinary authority did
not agree with the findings of the enquiry officer exonerating the employee
from misconduct and punishing him by his own reasons wihout giving him notice,
will be illegal and will amount to violation of principles of natural justice.
Janeshwar Prasad Yadav vs. State
of Jharkhand and others. 2011 (129) FLR 690 (Jhar. HC)
Where the inquiry is vitiated
only then the labour court can go into merits of charges and direct the
employer to prove the charges.
Uttarakhand Transport Corporation
vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dehradun and others. 2011 (129) FLR 700
(Uttra. HC)
Calling employee to first lead
evidence in the enquiry will vitiate the enquiry. Management has to lead the
evidence first.
Chief Manager, Rajasthan State
Road Transport Corporation, Vidhyadhar Nagar Depot, Jaipur vs. Sukhveer Singh
(since deceased) through his Legal Heirs & Anr. 2011 LLR 680 (Raj. HC)
Court can't grant stay against
domestic enquiry pending criminal trial.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs.
Sunil kumar and Others. 2011 LLR 754 (Del. HC)
Confirming the order of
punishment by board of directors without giving opportunity of hearing to the
employee would be violative of principles of natural justice.
Madhukar Tulsiram Tayade vs.
Chairman, Board of Directors, Vidarbha Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Akola and Others.
2011 LLR 770 (Bom. HC)
Findings of Court in a criminal
case must prevail over the department proceedings on same set of charges.
State of West Bengal and others
vs. Vidyasagar Pandey and another. 2011 (129) FLR 45 (Cal. HC)
It is not the quantum of amount
misappropriated but the unreliable conduct of the employee which is relevant
for the purpose of imposing penalty.
K. Murthy vs. Labour Court &
Ors. LLN (1) 2011 P. 105 (Mad. HC)
When reasons in writing are
recorded by authority for dispensation of enquiry being not resonably
practicable to follow the procedure prescribed in the rules, authority can
dispense with the enquiry and terminate the services.
S.P. Arya vs. Union of India
& Ors. 2011 LLR 1139 (Delhi HC)
Charge sheet about the misconduct
of theft has to be very precise and specific. In that absence workman can’t be
held responsible for loss of goods by EO in the enquiry.
K. Ramesh vs. Presiding Officer,
Principal Labour Court, Chennai & Anr. 2011 LLR 1149 (Mad. HC)
Pending disciplinary proceedings,
transfer of the president of the union instead of placing under suspension
can’t be said to be malafide.
Kedar Singh Baghel vs. M.P. Purva
Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Company Limited, Jabalpur and Others. 2011 LLR 1185
(Mad. HC)
Enquiry will be invalid when EO
himself appeared as witness. Termination on the basis of such enquiry not
sustainable.
The Haryana State Co-operative
Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd. vs. Prem Singh & Anr. 2011 LLR 1188
(P&H HC)
Suspension of an employee has to
be supported by justifiable reasons.
Sharad Chandra Sharma vs. Delhi
Transco Limited & Ors. 2011 LLR 1226, 2011 VI AD (Delhi) 557 (Del. HC)
Employee failed to participate in
the enquiry, can’t further challenge the violation of principles of natural
justice.
Jitender Kumar Goel vs. Director,
Directorate of Education & Ors. 2011 VII AD(Delhi) 592 (Del. HC)
When enquiry is not delayed for
the reason directly attributable to workman, he is entitled to subsistence
allowance in accordance with the service rules of the bank or settlement with
the union.
Smt. Jayashree Vani vs. Bank of
India, Bangalore. 2011(130) FLR 1034 (Karn. HC)
Even if there is a provision in
the bank rules for conducting common enquiry against two or more employees on
the ground of having identical charges, bank can go for individual enquiries.
T. Baba Prasad vs. Andhra Bank
and two others. 2011(4) LLN 94 (AP HC)
High Court is not required to
interfere with the findings of the enquiry officer based on evidence and
decision of the disciplinary authority to come to a different finding.
Failure of employee to submit
written explanation of the charge sheet, can’t be presumed as admission of
charges by the employee.
Imposing major penalty without
holding enquiry is a serious flaw.
U.P. Cooperative Bank Ltd. &
Ors. vs. P.O., Labour Court & Ors. 2011 LLR 1247 (All. HC)
necessary to justify the
punishment.
U.P. State Road Transport
Corporation vs. Sudhir Nigam. 2011 LLR 361 (All. HC)
Enquiry not vitiated for non
supplying of list of documents and enquiry report.
Raja Ram vs. Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat & Anr. 2011 LLR 1164 (P&H
HC)
Disciplinary authority is under
obligation to provide an opportunity of hearing to the employee when he choose
to differ from the findings of the enquiry officer.
Dandapani Muli vs. P.O.,
Industrial Tribunal, BBSR & Ors. 2011 LLR 910 (Orissa HC)
When enquiry officer exonerated
the employee from charges and disciplinary authority dissented from, workman
needs to be provided opportunity of hearing.
Senior Regional Manager vs.
C.G.I.T., Jabalpur and Another. 2011 LLR 941 (MP HC)
In the absence of any such plea
of bias before EO during enquiry, EO will not be deemed as biased.
Kewal Krishan vs. Presiding
Officer, Industrial Tribunal & Anr. 2011 LLR 1011 (Delhi HC)
It is always open for the
disciplinary auhority to change his view after going through the explanation of
the employee submitted after show cause notice.
Subhashchandra Mukherjee vs.
Chairman. 2011 LLR 1049 (MP HC)
Permanent withdrawal of pension
is appropriate punishment to the person who was found guilty of
misappropriation.
Dipak Kumar Lahiri vs. National
Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. 2011 (II) LLN 151 (Cal. HC)
Before imposing penalty to the
delinquent, the disciplinary authority has to bear in mind the nature and
gravity of charges and whether any financial loss was caused by the delinquent
as also his physical disability.
T.R. Raghukumar vs. Union Bank.
CLR I 2011 P. 893 (Kar. HC)
