Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →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 non-supply of the inquiry report before the disciplinary order caused prejudice to the respondent so as to invalidate the dismissal.
Analysis: The respondent had received the inquiry report before filing the statutory appeal and had also challenged the findings on merits in the writ petition, where the report was annexed and the findings were assailed. The Court held that the High Court erred in assuming prejudice without examining whether non-furnishing of the report actually affected the result. The charges were found to be serious acts of misconduct relating to banking integrity, and the reasoning based on the supposed effect of the earlier charge-sheet and the doctrine of severability was rejected. The Court emphasised that disciplinary orders are not to be set aside mechanically on the mere ground of non-supply of the report, unless real prejudice is shown.
Conclusion: The respondent was not prejudiced by non-supply of the inquiry report in the facts of the case, and the dismissal could not be set aside on that ground.
Final Conclusion: The order of dismissal was restored, and the High Court's interference was reversed.
Ratio Decidendi: Non-supply of the inquiry report does not vitiate a disciplinary dismissal unless the delinquent employee shows actual prejudice affecting the outcome.