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>Supreme Court upholds disciplinary action without prior report if no proven prejudice. Past conduct relevant in punishment</h1> <h3>Union of India (UOI) and Ors. Versus Bishamber Das Dogra</h3> The Supreme Court held that non-supply of the enquiry report before awarding punishment does not automatically invalidate disciplinary proceedings unless ... - Issues Involved:1. Whether the delinquent employee is not supposed to establish de-facto prejudice in case the enquiry report is not supplied to him before awarding punishmentRs.2. Whether the order of punishment would be vitiated if the Disciplinary Authority takes into consideration the past conduct of the delinquent employee for the purpose of punishmentRs.Summary:Issue 1: Non-supply of Enquiry Report and PrejudiceThe Supreme Court examined whether non-furnishing the enquiry report to the delinquent employee before awarding punishment automatically vitiates the disciplinary proceedings. It was held that the delinquent employee must establish that non-furnishing of the enquiry report caused prejudice to him. The Court cited precedents, including *Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar* and *Haryana Financial Corporation v. Kailash Chandra Ahuja*, emphasizing that the principles of natural justice require the employee to demonstrate real prejudice caused by the non-supply of the report. The Court concluded that non-supply of the enquiry report does not ipso facto vitiate the disciplinary proceedings; it depends on the facts and circumstances of the case.Issue 2: Consideration of Past Conduct in PunishmentThe Court addressed whether the Disciplinary Authority can consider the past conduct of the delinquent employee while imposing punishment. It was held that the past conduct could be taken into account to reinforce the decision of imposing punishment, even if it is not mentioned in the second show cause notice. The Court referred to *State of Assam v. Bimal Kumar* and *State of Mysore v. Manche Gowda*, stating that the disciplinary authority should inform the delinquent employee that past conduct would be considered, but in cases of grave misconduct, past conduct can be considered without it being part of the charge sheet. The Court emphasized that habitual absenteeism constitutes gross violation of discipline, referencing *Burn & Co. Ltd. v. Wormess* and *L&T Komatsu Ltd. v. N. Udayakumar*.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgments of the Division Bench and the learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court. The order of punishment imposed by the statutory authority was restored. The Court emphasized that the High Court should not have interfered with the punishment order on technical grounds, especially given the respondent's repeated absenteeism and gross violation of discipline. No costs were awarded.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
