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 a major punishment order passed in departmental proceedings could be sustained when no enquiry was held after the delinquent employee denied the charges and no oral or documentary evidence was examined in accordance with the prescribed procedure.
Analysis: Under the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, a major penalty can be imposed only after an enquiry is held in the manner prescribed. Where the charged employee denies the charges, the inquiry officer must fix a date, conduct the enquiry, examine the evidence relied upon, and afford an opportunity of cross-examination and defence. Even if the delinquent does not seek personal hearing or does not participate, the enquiry officer is not relieved of the obligation to conduct a proper enquiry, including an ex parte enquiry if necessary. The requirement of an oral enquiry is treated as an integral part of reasonable opportunity and principles of natural justice under Articles 14 and 311 of the Constitution of India. In the present case, the record showed that after the reply to the charge-sheet, no enquiry date was fixed and no enquiry was conducted before submission of the report.
Conclusion: The punishment order was unsustainable and was quashed for violation of the prescribed disciplinary procedure and principles of natural justice.