Disciplinary Proceedings-- Important Judgements

(Note- To view the judgement please click on Names of Parties)

Sr.
No.

Topic

Natural Justice

Reasonable Opportunity

Criminal Proceedings
and
Disciplinary Proceedings

Names of
parties
State Bank of
Patiala v/s
S.K.Sharma
Khemchand
v/s Union of
India

Citation
AIR 1996
SC1669

Procedural violations causing

prejudice to employee only(not all)
vitiate the inquiry.

AIR 1958
SC 300

Reasonable opportunity means

1) Opportunity to deny the guilt &
prove innocence.
2) To defend by cross examining the
witnesses of the disciplinary
authority & examine the
witnesses on his behalf and
produce evidence.

State of
AIR 1997
https://docs.googl
SC 13
e.com/viewer?
a=v&pid=explorer
&chrome=true&sr
AIR1999
cid=0BzRASCW 1098
6oLX_8ZmU0YzM1MDIt
ZDVjMy00ZjgwLW
EzMzYtNzJiNGF
mODZlMWQw&hl
=en_USRajasthan
v/s
B.K.Meena
Cap. M. paul
Anthony v/s
Bharat Gold
mines Ltd.

Judicial Review of
Disciplinary Proceedings

B.C.Chaturvedi
v/s Union Of India

Law laid down / Point settled

AIR 1996
SC 484

No legal bar to conduct criminal

proceedings and disciplinary
proceedings simultaneously.
No legal bar to conduct the C.P.&
D.P simultaneously. However if the
charges are grave and question of
law and facts was involved, the D.P.
be stayed. However if the C.P. gets
delayed the D.P. be revived and
completed.
If the facts and the evidence in both
the proceedings, namely, the
departmental proceedings and
the criminal case were the same
without there being any iota of
difference, the distinction, which is
usually drawn as between the
departmental proceedings and the
criminal case on the basis of
approach and burden of proof, would
not be applicable .

Judicial review is not a review of

decision but review of manner in

which decision is made.Powers of

administrative tribunals.
Apparel Export
Promotion council
v/s A.K. Chopra

1) Disciplinary authority is the sole

judge of facts.
2) Appellate authority can
reappreciate the evidence & not
the High Courts and Tribunals.

Sexual harassment at
workplace

Vishakha V/S
state of Rajasthan

AIR 1997 Sc 1) Sexual harassment at workplace

3011
is violative of Articles, 14, 19 and 21
of the Constitution.
2) Definition of sexual
harassment.
3) Action by Departments &
Head of deptt.to prevent S.H.

Imposing punishment not

provided in Rules

Vijay Singh V/S

State of U. P.

Supreme
Court

The Disciplinary Authority cannot

impose the punishment not provided
in rules as a result of departmental
inquiry.

Suspension of A.I.S.Officer
on account of criminal
charge

State of
Maharashtra v/s
A.K.Jain

Bombay
High Court

Suspension of A.I.S.officer uner Rule

3(3) of A.I.S.(Discipline & Appeals)
Rules 1969 is to continue till
termination of criminal proceedings.
Review of suspension not warranted
by Rules.

Invalidating of caste
certificate after lapse of 9
years-benefits of caste
given cannot be withdrawn
but new benefits no more

Dattu Thakur v/s

Stae of
Maharashtra and
others

Supreme
court

Invalidation of caste certificate after 9

years -No sound reasons for delaybenefits of caste given cannot be
withdrawn but new benefits not to be
given

Interference by High
Courts while considering
relief under Article 226

Vijay Kumar Kaul

V/S Union Of
India

Civil Appeal
4986-4989
of 2007

Courts to exercise discretion to

interfere in cases where parties
approach expeditiously for relief
byfiling writ under Art. 226

10

Parameters for Deciding

the Tribe Claims by the
Caste Scrutiny Comittee

Anand V/S
Committee for
Scrutiny &
Verification of
Tribe Claims

AIR 2012
SC 314

Parameters laid down for the

guidance of The Caste Scrutiny
Committee for deciding the Tribe
claims

11

Recovery of Excess
payment of
emoluments/allowances to
Government employee

Sayed Abdul
Kadir and others
V/S State Of Bihar

No recovery if excess payment made

not on account of
fraud/misrepresentation by the
employee and because of application
of wrong principle or mis
interpretation of rule/ order

12

Disciplinary Action against

judicial Officers

Union Of India
V/S .
Parmeswaran

Madras
High Court

No disciplinary Proceedings against

the officers of subordinate judiciary
can be initiated merely because the
judgements/ orders passed by them
are wrong

13

Opportunity to delinquent
employee in case the
disciplinary officer differs
with findings of Inquiry
Officer

Yoginath Bagde
V/S State of
Maharashtra

AIR 1999
SC 3734

In case the disciplinary authotrity

differs with the findings of Inquiry
Officer,which are favorable to
employee, the D.A. will have to
communicate tentative findings with
the reasons to the employyee and
give him an opprtunity to give his say
and then only approppriate order can
be passed. Denial of such
opportunity amounts to violation of
principles of justice.

14

Recommendation of the
High Court in case of
punishment or disciplinary
action against the judicial
officer is binding on the
Governor of the State who
is appointing authority.

Samsher Singh
V/S State Of
Punjab

1974 AIR
2192

The recommendation of the High

Court as regards punishment to
judicial officer or otherwise is binding
on the Governor Of the State

15

Guidelines for initiating

disciplinary action against
judicial officer

Union of India V/S

K.K.Dhavan

1993 AIR
1478

In what circumstances the

disciplinary action can be initiated
against the judicial officer

16

Consultation with Public

service Commission in
case of punishment to
judicial officer

State of Haryana
V/S Inder Prakash
Anand

1976 AIR
1841

In case of punsihment to judicial

officer as recommended by High
court, Public service commission is
not to be consulted , as required in
case of other state government
employees as provided in respective

Service Rules.

19

Claiming promotion
(Denied) after retirements

Joseph John V/S

Aquinos College.
Cochin

Kerala High
Court

Employee can claim denied

promotion even after retirement with
monetary benefits

20

Suspension of an
employee

State of Orissa
v/s Bimal Kumar
Mohanty

AIR 1994
SC 2296

1) Suspension is not a punishment

2) Suspension should be ordered
considering the gravity of the alleged
misconduct.prima facie evidence and
on application of mind . It should not
be administrative routine to suspend
an employee in every case.The order
of suspension

21

Ordering a fresh / denovo

inquiry

K.R.Deb v/s
Collector of
Central Exercise

AIR 1974
SC 1447

Ordering a fresh / denovo inquiry just

because the Disciplinary authority is
not satisfied with the findings of
Inquiry officer is illegal.

22

Attachment or seizure of
pension of employee

Union of India v/s

Wing commander
R.R.Hingorani

(1987) 1
SCC 551

No pension granted to an employee

will be liable to attachment, seizure
by process of any court at the
instance of a creditor.

23

Promotion a fundamental
Right

Maj Gen
H.M.Singh v/s
Union of India

supreme
court
judgement
delivered on
9 th Jan
2014

the non-consideration of the claim of

the employee/ appellant eligible and
found fit for promotion would violate
the fundamental rights vested in him
under Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India. subject to the
condition, that the employers /
respondents were desirous of filling
the vacancy of the promotional
post

24

Promotion during pending

Departmental or Criminal
proceedings

Union Of India v/s

K.V.Jankiraman

1991 AIR
2010

Sealed cover procedure to be

adopted when charge sheet is issed
not earlier.Employee has no right of
promotion but only to be considerd
for promotion.

25

Continuance of
Disciplinary Proceedings
against a dismissed
employee.

State of
Maharashtra
v/s
Vijay Kumar
Agarwal

C.A.10201021/2014
@
SLP(C)No.2
9202921/2014
@ CC No.
1749817499/2013

The disciplinary proceedings cannot

be continued against a dismissed
employee and therefore be kept in
abeyance. If the order of dismissal is
set aside, the relationship of
employer- employee gets restored
and the disciplinary proceedings be
revived and finalized as per law."

26

Pensioner and
Departmental proceedings

State of Bihar
v/s
Mohd.idris Ansari

AIR1995
SC1853

After retirement of employee, the

departmental proceedings can be
instituted against him for (1) Grave
misconduct and (2) for recovery of
financial loss caused to
Government . However such
proceedings can be instituted for
the cause of action arose or in
respect of event which took place
not more than four years before
institution of the said proceedings.
(i.e. before issue of regular charge
sheet)

U.P.State Sugar
Corporation Ltd.
v/s
Kamal Swarup
Tondon

Appeal 513
of 2008

The disciplinary proceedings are

treated to have commenced on the
date on which the regular charge
sheet is issued though the same is
received after office hours on the
date of retirement ( or even
thereafter)

State of U.P.
v/s
Krishna Pande

1996(2)SLR
518 SC

The disciplinary proceedings can be

instituted against a retired employee
within four years before such
institution (before issue of charge

sheet)

Union Of India
v/s
Mohandas

2005(2)
KLT 534

No disciplinary proceedings can be

instituted against a retired employee
for misconduct which is not grave.
The disciplinary proceedings started
against a serving employee for
imposing a minor penalty come to an
end on his retirement

27

MISCONDUCT

State of Punjab
v/s
Kailash Nath

1989AIR
SC 558

Baldev Singh
Gandhi
V /S
State of Punjab

AIR2002
SC1124

The criminal proceedings can be

instituted any time after retirement, in
respect of an act of employee (which
amounts to an offence under criminal
law) or incident taken place while the
employee was in service. However
the pension whole or in part,
permanently or for specific period
can be withdrawn or withheld, only if
the judicial proceedings are instituted
after his retirement in respect of a
cause of action which arose or in
respect of an event which took place
not more than four years before
institution of such proceedings.
The word Misconduct is antithesis
of the word conduct. Ordinarily the
expression misconduct means a
wrong or improper conduct, unlawful
misbehaviour, misfeasance, wrong
conduct, misdemeanour etc.There
being different meaning of the
expression Misconduct, we
therefore have to construe the
expression of misconductwith
reference to the subject and the
context wherein the said expression
occurs, Regard being had to to the
aims and objects of the statute.

28

M.M. Malhotra
V/S
Stae of Bombay

2005AIR
SCW5497

The word misconduct was not

capable of precise definition But at
the same time though incapable of
precise definition, the word
misconduct on reflection its
connotation from the context , the
delinquency in performance and iss
effect on the discipline and nature of
duty. The act complained of must
bear a forbidden quality or character
and its ambit has to be construed
with reference to the subject-matter
and the context wherein the term
occurs , having regard to the scope
of the statute and the public purpose
it seeks to serve

29

J.J.Mody
V/S
State of Bombay

AIR1962
Guj 197

The following acts can be listed as

serious misconduct ,
where the act or conduct of the
servant is prejudicial to the interests
of the master or reputation of the
master;
where the act or conduct of the
servant is inconsistant or
incompatible with the due or peaceful
discharge of his duty to this master;
where the act or conduct of a
servant makes it unsafe for the
employer to retain him in ,
where the act or conduct of the
servant is so grossly immoral that all
reasonable men will say that the
employee cannot be trusted.
where the act or conduct of the
employee is such that the master
cannot rely on the faithful ness of his
employee.
where the act or conduct of the
employee is such t as to open
before him temptation for not
discharging his duties properly.
where the servant is abusive or if he
disturbs peace at the place of his

employment.
where the servant is insulting and
insubordinate to such a degree as to
be incompatible with the continuance
of the relation of master and servant,
where the servant is habitually
negligent in respect of the duties for
which he is engaged
where the neglect of the servant,
though isolated, tends to cause
serious consequences.
30

Union of India
V/S
J. Ahmed

AIR1979
SC
1022

Lack of efficiency or failure to attain

highest standard in discharge of
duties attached to a public office
would not ipso facto,constitutea
misconduct.

31

A.L.Kalra
V/S
P.& E.
Corporation Ltd

AIR 1984
SC 1361

Where certain situation is governed

by contractual provisions which have
in built penal consequences, their
violations will not constitute a
misconduct for the purpose of
disciplinary action unless the
Government have specifically
notified it to be so.

32

State of Punjab
V/S
Ram Singh

1992AIR
SCW2595

The supreme court defined the term

misconduct,in employment situation
and held that vandalism under
influence of liquor is one of the
greatest acts of misconduct
warranting dismissal from service.

33

Union of India
V/S
K.K. Dhavan

AIR1993
SC 1478

A misconduct even in exercise of

quasi judicial functioning under an
enactment does not give immunity
from disciplinary action.

34

B.C.Chaturvedi
V/S
Union of India

(1995)
6SCC749

The possession of assets by a public

servant disproportionate to his
known sources of income is a
serious misconduct

35

Roznama- Statement of
Inquiring authority

T.R. Varma

AIR 1957
SC 882

Roznama or daily order sheet is an

important document since it contains
an authentic record of the
proceedings of inquiry showing what
happened during inquiry.If a dispute
arises as to what happened during
the course of inquiry, the statement
of Inquiring authority is taken as
correct.

36

Criminal case against a

retired employee- Sanction
for prosecution

State of Punjab
v/s
Labh Singh

Criminal
appeal
decided by
Supreme
Court on
17-12-2014

1) No sanction to prosecute the

public servant for the offences
under the Prevention of Corruption
Act 1988 is required if the public
servant had already retired on the
date of cognizance by the court.
2) The sanction for prosecution is
required when a retired public
servant is to be prosecuted for the
offences under Indian Penal Code.

Manzoor Ali Khan

v/s
Union of India

w.p.(c) 305
0f 2007
decide by
Supreme
Court on
6-8-2014

1) The requirement of sanction for

prosecution of serving public
servant is constitutionally valid.
2) Sanctioning authority must decide
question of granting sanction
within a period of three months
from receipt of proposal. Extension
of one month when Advocate or
Solicitor General is to be
Consultated.
3) A private citizen has a right to file
a complaint for prosecution against
a public servant for the offences
allegedly committed under
Prevention of corruption Act 1988
4) No opportunity is required to be
given to the public servant by the
sanctioning authority.
5) The sanctioning authority cannot
hold a further inquiry to find out the

truth on the basis of the

representation of the accused.
6) The sanctioning authority has
only to see whether the facts
brought before him constitute the
offence.
7) If the sanctioning authority has
any doubt about the facts, it may
refer back to the agency seeking
sanction of prosecution.
An article by Adv.
Ashok Dhamija,
an author of the
book on
Prevention of
Corruption Act
1988
S. A.
Venkataraman vs
The State

Review of various important

judgements on regarding sanction for
prosecution under Prevention of
corruption Act 1988.

Criminal
appeal
decided by
supreme
court on 312-1957

Same as those in case of State of

Punjab v/s Labh Singh mentioned
earlier