Back
NARENDRA KUMAR VYAS
Arun Kumar, S/o. Mankshachand – Appellant
Versus
Coal India Limited. , through the Chairman Coal India Limited – Respondent
ORDER :
1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 2-4-2022 passed by the Respondent No. 3 by which it has affirmed the order dated 15/22-3-1995 passed by disciplinary authority whereby the services of the petitioner were terminated.
2. Brief facts as reflected from the records are that the petitioner was appointed as Dumper Operator in Gevra Project, SECL, in the year 1983. He was transferred from Gevra to Sohagpur, Amlayi, Open cast mines vide order dated 20-1-1993. He joined there on 13-2-1993 and thereafter he made an appeal before the Managing Director of the company regarding his safety at Sohagpur area as he has suffered the incident at the work place on 14-1-1992. Thereafter, he was again transferred from Sohagpur to Chirmiri. The petitioner has made various representations regarding his safety at the work place. It was alleged that the petitioner did not join at Chirmiri and he remained unauthorized absent from duty from 16-3-1993. Therefore, he was served with charge sheet dated 22.09.1994 wherein charges were levelled for committing serious misconduct as provided in Clause 26.30 of the Standing
The judgment established the importance of adhering to the principle of natural justice in disciplinary proceedings and emphasized the need for proportionality in imposing punishments for misconduct.
The limitations of the Writ Court in determining the factual matrix and the scope of power to issue a writ of certiorari.
Intentional avoidance of participation in enquiry proceedings waives the plea of natural justice and estops the petitioner from questioning the non-compliance of natural justice.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that disciplinary authorities must act fairly and in accordance with the applicable rules. Non-cooperation and deliberate non-compliance with trans....
The court affirmed that a fairness in domestic enquiry is paramount, and procedural lapses do not automatically invalidate findings unless they cause demonstrable prejudice to the employee.
Disciplinary actions by employers must comply with fair enquiry standards; failure to allow cross-examination does not nullify properly conducted proceedings.
A delinquent employee is entitled to be represented by a legal practitioner in a domestic enquiry, especially when the employer is represented by legally trained persons.
The importance of providing a delinquent employee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard and the consequences of non-participation in disciplinary proceedings.
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
