TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Disciplinary actions overturned for lack of fair hearing. Importance of due process emphasized.</h1> <h3>Divisional Personnel Officer Versus T.R. Challappan</h3> Divisional Personnel Officer Versus T.R. Challappan - 1975 AIR 2216, 1976 (1) SCR 783, 1976 (3) SCC 190 Issues Involved:1. Applicability of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act.2. Interpretation of Rule 14 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968.3. Discretion of the Disciplinary Authority to impose penalties without a departmental inquiry.4. Effect of conviction and release on probation on employment status.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Applicability of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act:Argument by Appellants:Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act does not obliterate the misconduct of the accused, thereby not debaring the Disciplinary Authority from imposing penalties under the Rules against an employee convicted for misconduct.Court's Analysis:The Court clarified that Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act does not wipe out the stigma of conviction. The section merely removes disqualifications attached to a conviction under other laws, but it does not affect the finding of misconduct or the conviction itself. The Court stated, 'The mere fact that the accused is released on probation does not obliterate the stigma of conviction.'2. Interpretation of Rule 14 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968:Argument by Appellants:Rule 14 is similar to proviso (a) to Article 311(2) of the Constitution and allows the appointing authority to dismiss an employee found guilty of a criminal offense without further notice or inquiry.Court's Analysis:The Court emphasized that Rule 14(1) should be read as 'where any penalty is imposable' rather than 'where any penalty is imposed.' The rule incorporates the principle of proviso (a) to Article 311(2), which dispenses with the need for a departmental inquiry after a criminal conviction. However, the rule requires the Disciplinary Authority to consider the circumstances of the case before making any order. The Court held, 'The disciplinary authority may consider the circumstances of the case and make such orders thereon as it deems fit.'3. Discretion of the Disciplinary Authority to impose penalties without a departmental inquiry:Argument by Appellants:In the absence of a provision similar to Rule 14, the Government can terminate the services of an employee convicted of a criminal charge without any further departmental inquiry.Court's Analysis:The Court refrained from expressing an opinion on this aspect, as the cases before it were governed by Rule 14. The Court noted that the Disciplinary Authority must consider the circumstances and hear the delinquent employee on the nature and extent of the penalty. The Court stated, 'The term 'consider' postulates consideration of all the aspects, the pros and cons of the matter after hearing the aggrieved person.'4. Effect of conviction and release on probation on employment status:Argument by Respondents:The release on probation under the Probation of Offenders Act should obliterate the conviction, thereby preventing automatic dismissal from service.Court's Analysis:The Court disagreed with this argument, stating that the conviction remains even if the accused is released on probation. The Court held, 'The factum of guilt on the criminal charge is not swept away merely by passing the order releasing the offender on probation.' The Court further clarified that the Disciplinary Authority must consider the circumstances of the case and cannot impose a penalty solely based on the conviction without such consideration.Conclusion:The Supreme Court upheld the judgments of the Kerala and Rajasthan High Courts, quashing the orders of removal from service due to the failure of the Disciplinary Authorities to consider the circumstances of the case and to hear the delinquent employees before imposing penalties. The appeals were dismissed, and the parties were left to bear their own costs. The Court emphasized the necessity for the Disciplinary Authority to actively apply its mind and consider all relevant factors before deciding on the penalty.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
