Disciplinary Case Laws - 2011

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)
Twitter Delicious Facebook Digg Stumbleupon Favorites linkedin More