Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the dismissal from service could be sustained when the charge-sheet was vague and the material relied upon in the enquiry had not been properly supplied.
Analysis: A disciplinary charge must be specific and supported by the particulars on which the allegation rests. Where the charge alleges violation of governmental orders, the orders themselves, including their dates and numbers, must be clearly set out and furnished if they are to be used against the delinquent employee. The material before the enquiry officer was not placed in a manner satisfying this requirement. The respondent was also found only to have renewed deposits made by predecessors, which weakened the basis for fastening personal culpability. In these circumstances, the finding of misconduct could not rest on the defective charge.
Conclusion: The dismissal was unsustainable and the respondent was not liable to be found guilty on the charge framed against him.
Ratio Decidendi: A disciplinary punishment cannot be upheld on the basis of a vague charge or on material not properly disclosed to the delinquent employee, since such defects offend natural justice and prevent a valid finding of misconduct.