| Headnote |
Service Law - Departmental enquiry - Punishment imposed upon delinquent employee set aside by the Court/ Tribunal as the enquiry stood vitiated for technical reasons - Entitlement of employer to hold enquiry afresh from the point it stood vitiated - Held: Once the Court set asides an order of punishment on the ground, that the enquiry was not properly conducted, the Court should not severely preclude the employer from holding the enquiry in accordance with law - It must remit the concerned case to the disciplinary authority, to conduct the enquiry from the point that it stood vitiated, and to conclude the same in accordance with law - However, resorting to such a course depends upon the gravity of delinquency involved. Service Law - Departmental enquiry - Enquiry at belated stage - If can be quashed on the ground of delay - Held: The court/tribunal should not generally set aside the departmental enquiry, and quash the charges on the ground of delay in initiation of disciplinary proceedings, as such a power is de hors the limitation of judicial review - The essence of the matter is that the court must take into consideration all relevant facts, and balance and weigh the same, so as to determine, if it is in fact in the interest of clean and honest administration, that the said proceedings are allowed to be terminated, only on the ground of a delay in their conclusion. Service Law - Departmental enquiry - Enquiry on vague and unspecified charges - Permissibility - Held: Nowhere should a delinquent be served a chargesheet, without providing to him, a clear, specific and definite description of the charge against him - When statement of allegations are not served with the chargesheet, the enquiry stands vitiated, as having been conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice - There must be fair-play in action, particularly in respect of an order involving adverse or penal consequences. Service Law - Departmental enquiry - Enquiry against retired employee - Circumstances when such enquiry can be conducted - Held: The relevant rules governing the service conditions of an employee are the determining factors as to whether and in what manner the domestic enquiry can be held against an employee who stood retired after reaching the age of superannuation - Generally, if the enquiry has been initiated while the delinquent employee was in service, it would continue even after his retirement, but nature of punishment would change - The punishment of dismissal/removal from service would not be imposed. Service Law - Departmental enquiry - For misconduct - Termination of appellant-employee - Challenge to - Meanwhile, appellant stood retired upon reaching the age of superannuation - Tribunal held that none of the charges levelled against the appellant stood proved, and that the enquiry had not been conducted according to the 1981 Rules - Termination order accordingly quashed - Writ Petition - Single Judge of High Court upheld the judgment of Tribunal, and found the enquiry to be entirely defective and thus, illegal - Division Bench too, upheld the judgment of the Single Judge, as well as that of the Tribunal, but simultaneously also held, that the respondents were at liberty to proceed with the enquiry afresh, as regards the said charges - On appeal, held: Division Bench committed error by giving liberty to the respondents to hold a fresh enquiry - Charges levelled against the appellant were entirely vague, irrelevant and unspecific - Question of holding any fresh enquiry on such vague charges, therefore, unwarranted and uncalled for - Procedure prescribed under rr.36, 37 and 57 of the 1981 Rules were violated - Moreover, appellant had already retired - No rule brought to notice that may confer any statutory power on the respondent-management to hold fresh enquiry after retirement of an employee - In absence of any such authority, the Division Bench erred in creating a post- retirement forum that may not be permissible under law - Further, departmental enquiry can be quashed on the ground of delay provided the charges are not very grave - It was not necessary for the Division Bench to permit the respondents to hold a fresh enquiry on the .said charges and that too, after more than a decade of the retirement of the appellant - Maharashtra Employees of Private School Rules, 1981 - rr.36, 37 & 57. |
