Back
E. S. INDIRESH
Narayanappa – Appellant
Versus
Superintending Engineer – Respondent
JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dtd. 29/6/2011 (Annexure-D), passed by respondent No.2 imposing the punishment of withholding increment of the petitioner for two years.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that:
2.1. Respondent No.1 had initiated disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner, who is working as Senior Assistant, O and M Sec., Maski, by framing charges alleging that, the petitioner while working as Assistant Accounts Officer (Internal Audit) with the respondent - Corporation, transferred and credited the amount in ledger from one RR No. to another RR No. and responsible for loss of Rs.51, 344.00 in respect of 35 cases as per the show cause notice dtd. 26/8/2010 (Annexure-A to the writ petition). The petitioner replied to the same by way of Annexure-D.
2.2. Having not satisfied with the reply made by the petitioner, the respondent - Corporation conducted enquiry and found the petitioner guilty. 2.3. Pursuant to the enquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority as per order dtd. 22/9/2010, imposed punishment as per Annexure-C to the writ petition.
2.4. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed an appeal to the Appel
The court emphasized the importance of proving charges in a disciplinary enquiry and the need for a joint enquiry when multiple employees are involved in the alleged misconduct.
Distinct allegations against employee charged in the same transaction would be justified being based on a valid classification and no perversity or arbitrariness can be alleged in the process.
A disciplinary authority must properly consider the Enquiry Officer's findings, failing which any punishment imposed is invalid.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of considering the defence of the delinquent employee and recording reasons in decision-making processes, highlighting the obligation to adhere to principles of....
Disciplinary Authorities must provide compelling reasons for diverging from an Inquiry Officer's findings and uphold principles of natural justice, ensuring fair opportunity for representation.
The disciplinary authority must show a difference of opinion with the enquiry officer's finding before inflicting punishment and provide an opportunity for representation.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
