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 overturns High Court's decision in disciplinary case, finding no violation of natural justice.</h1> <h3>STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS Versus RAMESH CHANDRA MANGALIK</h3> The Supreme Court found in favor of the appellant, overturning the High Court's decision. It held that there was no violation of natural justice in the ... - Issues Involved:1. Violation of principles of natural justice in disciplinary proceedings.2. Basis for the calculation of the amount sought to be recovered.3. Relevance of the respondent's acquittal in a criminal case to the departmental proceedings.4. Whether the charges against the respondent constituted misconduct.Detailed Analysis:1. Violation of principles of natural justice in disciplinary proceedings:The High Court found that the principles of natural justice were violated because the respondent was not supplied with copies of all necessary and relevant documents and was not afforded a proper opportunity of hearing. The High Court noted that out of 22 documents mentioned in the charge-sheet, only 17 were supplied, and specific documents obtained after the date of hearing were not shared with the respondent. However, the Supreme Court observed that the Inquiry Officer had indicated that all relevant records were available for inspection by the respondent, and the respondent had been informed accordingly. The Court also noted that the respondent did not show how the non-supply of specific documents caused prejudice to him. The Supreme Court concluded that the finding of the High Court on the violation of natural justice was not sustainable.2. Basis for the calculation of the amount sought to be recovered:The High Court observed that there was no clear basis for calculating the amount of loss as Rs. 82,740/-. However, the Supreme Court found that the calculations were clearly recorded in the Inquiry Officer's report, and the basis of the amount of loss was indicated in the report. Therefore, the Supreme Court concluded that the High Court's observation on this point was incorrect.3. Relevance of the respondent's acquittal in a criminal case to the departmental proceedings:The High Court made an observation regarding the respondent's acquittal in a criminal case, suggesting that it should have been considered in the departmental proceedings. The Supreme Court clarified that the criminal proceedings were related to a trap case and had no connection with the charges in the departmental proceedings. Therefore, the Supreme Court found that the High Court's observation on this point was a non-application of mind to the facts of the case.4. Whether the charges against the respondent constituted misconduct:The respondent's counsel argued that even if the charges were proved, they did not constitute misconduct. The Supreme Court referred to a previous case (Union of India vs. J. Ahmed) where it was observed that negligence or lack of efficiency might not constitute misconduct unless it resulted in significant consequences. However, the Supreme Court noted that the charges against the respondent involved unauthorized changes to the alignment of the canal, resulting in increased expenditure, which could be directly attributed to the respondent's actions. The Court found that the nature of the charges in the present case was different and could not be considered mere omissions or lack of competence.Conclusion:The Supreme Court concluded that the judgment and order of the High Court were not sustainable. The appeal was allowed, and the order and judgment of the High Court were set aside. No order as to costs was made.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
