Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
M. Srinivasan – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By its Principal Secretary Co-operation – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's challenge to dismissal order. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. petitioner's service history and previous complaints. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. arguments on legality of dismissal. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 4. allegations and enquiry proceedings need substantial evidence. (Para 12 , 13 , 18) |
| 5. requirements for valid disciplinary proceedings. (Para 19 , 20) |
| 6. principles of natural justice violated. (Para 24 , 25) |
| 7. order of removal quashed; consequences and directions. (Para 27 , 28 , 29) |
ORDER :
1. In W.P. No.35377 of 2013, the petitioner challenges the order dated 06.09.2013 passed by the first respondent, whereby the order of dismissal dated 06.01.2012 issued by the second respondent, confirming the order dated 21.04.2010 passed by the third respondent dismissing the petitioner from service, was modified and substituted with removal from service.
3. The petitioner joined service as a Clerk in the fourth respondent Bank on 11.01.1989 and was promoted as Secretary on 01.06.1993. The petitioner claims to have filed a complaint before the District Collector against the Board of Directors alleging various illegalities and irregularities, which allegedly resulted in one of the Directors assaultin
The court emphasized that disciplinary actions must obey principles of natural justice, including evidence for charges and payment of subsistence allowance during suspension; non-compliance voids san....
The court ruled that disciplinary dismissals must adhere to natural justice and have sufficient evidence, particularly when severe penalties are imposed, as seen in cases of clerical errors.
Disciplinary proceedings must adhere to principles of natural justice and require cogent evidence; failure of the authority to produce documents and examine witnesses invalidates the outcome.
The disciplinary authority's decision to remove the employee for financial misconduct was upheld, as the inquiry followed due process and the employee admitted to significant charges.
Disciplinary dismissal based on financial misconduct was set aside due to lack of fair process and the employee's prior acquittal in criminal proceedings regarding identical charges.
The Disciplinary Authority can order further enquiry only if serious defects exist in the initial enquiry; it cannot do so after a finding of exoneration.
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
