TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕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%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the punishment and appellate orders on the ground that the regular departmental enquiry was vitiated for want of oral evidence and cross-examination, and whether the matter ought to have been remanded for fresh enquiry.
Analysis: The disciplinary proceedings were held under Rule 7 of the U.P. Government Servant (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1999, which required a regular enquiry. A regular enquiry contemplates fixing date, time and place for recording oral evidence, affording the delinquent employee an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, permitting defence evidence, and passing a reasoned order on the basis of proved material. On the record, no such regular enquiry was conducted, the witnesses were not examined, and no opportunity of cross-examination was given. The punishment imposed was only stoppage of one increment for one year and censure, and the Tribunal found the enquiry vitiated and set aside the disciplinary orders. In judicial review, interference with such a finding was not warranted, especially where the misconduct was of limited gravity and substantial time had elapsed since initiation of proceedings.
Conclusion: The Tribunal's view that the enquiry was vitiated was upheld, and the challenge to the Tribunal's order failed.
Ratio Decidendi: In disciplinary proceedings, absence of a regular enquiry with oral evidence and opportunity of cross-examination vitiates the action, and remand for fresh enquiry is not automatic but depends on the gravity of the misconduct and the surrounding facts.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
