Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, AMIT BANSAL
Bhopal Singh – Appellant
Versus
Delhi Development Authority – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of case and background. (Para 1) |
| 2. contentions related to penalty and dismissal. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. observations on inquiry and disciplinary processes. (Para 4 , 5 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. arguments regarding past conduct and nature of incidents. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 5. discussion on the necessity of inquiry and applicable regulations. (Para 10) |
| 6. response of dda regarding inquiry feasibility. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 7. court's conclusion on the capacity to conduct inquiries. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 8. final decision and dismissal of the petition. (Para 16) |
JUDGMENT
[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J. The petition impugns the order dated 29th March, 2019 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi of dismissal of OA No.2227/2016 preferred by the petitioner. The said OA was preferred by the petitioner, impugning (a) the order dated 30th April, 2015 of the Disciplinary Authority of the respondent Delhi Development Authority (DDA), in exercise of powers under Regulation 30(2) of the DDA Conduct, Disciplinary and Appeal Regulations, 1999, of dispensing with the conduct of enquiry for imposing penalty and of imposing the penalty of dismissal from service wi
Dismissal without inquiry is permissible under special circumstances, such as severe misconduct that creates a threatening atmosphere, justifying action under applicable regulations.
The court established that dismissal without a formal inquiry can be justified under the DDA regulations and constitutional provisions if the employee's conduct creates an atmosphere of fear within t....
Dismissal under Article 311(2)(b) invalid without cogent, objective reasons showing inquiry impracticable; FIR involvement and witness fear presumptions insufficient if criminal probe exonerates empl....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that holding an inquiry is a rule while dispensing with it is an exception, and the reasons for dispensing with the inquiry must be sufficient and ....
Dismissal without inquiry violates natural justice and requires satisfactory justification under CISF Rules and Article 311 of the Constitution.
Disciplinary inquiry under 1999 Rules vitiated without oral hearing opportunity to delinquent, even absent proposed witnesses by either side, as implicit in rules for natural justice compliance.
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
