DIPANKAR DATTA, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA
K. Prabhakar Hegde – Appellant
Versus
Bank of Baroda – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. principles of natural justice established (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. factual background of the appellant's service and disciplinary actions (Para 7 , 8) |
| 3. high court's framing of issues relating to prejudicial reports (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. appellant's contentions regarding unfair proceedings (Para 14 , 15) |
| 5. respondent's defenses against the appellant's claims (Para 16 , 17) |
| 6. court's analysis on the preliminary inquiry report (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 7. impact of preliminary inquiry on fairness (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 8. discussion on the officer’s duty in questioning (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 9. comparison between criminal and administrative proceedings (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40) |
| 10. court's guidelines on the evidential requirements (Para 41 , 42 , 43 , 44) |
| 11. failure to observe mandatory regulatory duties vitiates inquiries. (Para 46 , 56 , 71) |
| 12. need for fair procedure in disciplinary actions (Para 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52) |
| 13. court's concluding remarks and directions on the dismissal (Para 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76) |
JUDGMENT :
PREFACE
Olga Tellis vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation
Union of India vs. Tulsiram Patel
State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Ram Prakash Singh
Sunil Kumar Banerjee vs. State of West Bengal and Others
Vijay Kumar Nigam v. State of M.P. (1996) 11 SCC 599 [Para 10]
Syndicate Bank & Ors. v. Venkatesh Gururao Kurati
Krishna Chandra Tandon v. Union of India
Chandrama Tewari v. Union of India
Narayan Dattatraya Ramteerthakhar v. State of Maharashtra
Nirmala J. Jhala v. State of Gujarat
Manoj Kumar v. State of U.P. (2018) 13 SCC 161 [Para 24]
Rama Shankar Singh v. State of West Bengal
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra
Maheshwar Tigga v. State of Jharkhand
Haryana Financial Corporation v. Kailash Chandra Ahuja
Mohd. Quaramuddin v. State of A.P. (1994) 5 SCC 118 [Para 62]
Brij Nandan Kansal v. State of U.P. 1988 Supp SCC 761 [Para 63]
State of Punjab v. Sodhi Sukhdev Singh
Natural justice principles enforce mandatory questioning of charged officers on adverse evidence, with violation leading to action being invalidated, regardless of proven prejudice.
The principles of natural justice require that a delinquent employee be given a copy of the preliminary enquiry report before the disciplinary authority arrives at its conclusions with regard to the ....
Disciplinary authority must supply enquiry report to employee before forming punishment opinion; failure breaches natural justice without needing prejudice proof; proceedings remanded for compliance.
Procedural irregularities in disciplinary proceedings do not automatically invalidate the inquiry unless they result in prejudice to the employee's ability to defend themselves.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.