Service Law : Supreme Court Upheld Quashing of Dismissal Order passed against Employee

Service Law : Supreme Court Upheld Quashing of Dismissal Order passed against an Employee

In an interesting case, the penalty Order imposed on an employee was quashed by High Court and Supreme Court has upheld the finding of the High Court. The employer had imposed penalty of dismissal from services of the employee "Z".

In this case, fresh charge-memo was issued to Z after issuing first charge-memo. In first charge-memo, inquiry was conducted but in second charge-memo no inquiry was conducted.

It was found that disciplinary proceedings against Z were conducted in violation of principles of natural justice and against the procedure prescribed in Regulation. It was also noted the employee should be heard in person ; employee should be permitted to produce witness in his defence.

Imposing of any penalty on an employee that too major penalty of dismissal from service can only be done after following the statutory provisions governing the disciplinary proceedings.

Further held that without any inquiry report having been served on the employee, Disciplinary Authority could not have proceeded to impose any punishment.

The compliance of principles of natural justice by the employer is not a mere formality, more so when the statutory provisions specifically provides that disciplinary proceedings shall be conducted with due observations of the principles of natural justice.

The compliance of natural justice in domestic/disciplinary inquiry is necessary has long been established. Court has held that even there are no specific statutory rule requiring observance of natural justice, the compliance of natural justice is necessary. Certain ingredients have been held to be constituting integral part of holding of an inquiry.

When the enquiry officer is not the disciplinary authority, the delinquent employee has a right to receive a copy of the enquiry officer's report before the disciplinary authority arrives at its conclusions with regard to the guilt or innocence of the employee with regard to the charges levelled against him. That right is a part of the employee's right to defend himself against the charges levelled against him. A denial of the enquiry officer's report before the disciplinary authority takes its decision on the charges, is a denial of reasonable opportunity to the employee to prove his innocence and is a breach of the principles of natural justice.

The enquiries must be conducted bona fide and care must be taken to see that the enquiries do not become empty formalities. If an officer is a witness to any of the incidents which is the subject matter of the enquiry or if the enquiry was initiated on a report of an officer, then in all fairness he should not be the Enquiry Officer. If the said position becomes known after the appointment of the Enquiry Officer, during the enquiry, steps should be taken to see that the task of holding an enquiry is assigned to some other officer. In an enquiry, the employer/department should take steps first to lead evidence against the workman/delinquent charged and give an opportunity to him to cross-examine the witnesses of the employer. Only thereafter, the workman/delinquent be asked whether he wants to lead any evidence and asked to give any explanation about the evidence led against him.

Case reference is CHAMOLI DIST.COOP.BANK LTD.TR.SEC. VS RAGHUNATH SINGH RANA [2016] GCtR 6509 (SC).