Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Court's Power to Grant Liberty for Enquiry in Orders - Main Points and Insights The courts have consistently held that when an order is set aside due to procedural or legal deficiencies, they often grant liberty to the authorities to conduct a fresh enquiry or pass a new order after proper procedure is followed. For example, in ["2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 41263"], the court observed: is liable to be set aside reserving liberty to the concerned ESCOMs to hold enquiry in the matter in a time bound way, emphasizing that liberty to hold a fresh enquiry is a common and accepted practice in such cases. Similarly, ["2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 12955"] and ["2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 2170"] highlight that courts often permit authorities to re-initiate enquiry or pass fresh orders, provided procedural fairness and natural justice are maintained. The Supreme Court has also recognized that procedural violations in disciplinary proceedings can be remedied by allowing a fresh enquiry, as seen in ["2015 0 Supreme(Bom) 2423"], which states: if an enquiry is set aside on the ground of being vitiated, a de novo enquiry can be ordered, and the effect relates back to the original order (relation back doctrine). The courts do not prohibit authorities from holding enquiries after orders are set aside; instead, they endorse a structured approach where a proper, lawful enquiry is conducted before any final orders are passed, especially when the original proceedings were defective or procedural irregularities are identified.
Legal Principle on Enquiry and Setting Aside Orders - Analysis and Conclusion The main principle derived from the sources is that courts are generally supportive of authorities conducting fresh, lawful inquiries after an order is set aside, especially when the initial order was made in violation of principles of natural justice or procedural law. The courts emphasize that liberty to hold a new enquiry is consistent with the doctrine of natural justice and procedural fairness, provided the enquiry is conducted properly (["2023 0 Supreme(All) 548"], ["2024 0 Supreme(All) 48"]). However, courts also recognize that this liberty is not absolute; in some cases, they may decline permission for a fresh enquiry if circumstances suggest that a new inquiry would be futile or unjustified (["2019 0 Supreme(Del) 1277"]). The courts have consistently upheld that the primary aim is to ensure fairness and natural justice, and that procedural violations can be remedied through a de novo enquiry, with the order relating back to the original date (["2015 0 Supreme(Bom) 2423"], ["2019 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 908"]). In conclusion, granting liberty to hold an enquiry while settling aside an impugned order is a well-established legal principle, especially in cases involving procedural lapses, and is considered a part of the procedural fairness that courts endorse in disciplinary or administrative proceedings. This approach is supported across multiple judgments and is followed in identical cases to uphold the principles of natural justice and fair hearing.
In the realm of against employees, courts often intervene when violate . A common scenario arises when an is set aside due to defects like the non-furnishing of an . But what happens next? Is granting liberty by the Court to hold a fresh enquiry while setting aside the impugned order a part of the order to be followed in identical cases?
This question strikes at the heart of balancing employee rights with employer authority. Drawing from landmark precedents like , courts have established a structured remedial approach. This blog post delves into the mandatory nature of such liberty, supported by key judgments and principles. Note: This is general information based on legal precedents and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
Yes, granting liberty to the disciplinary authority to conduct a fresh enquiry (or proceed from the relevant stage) is typically a mandatory and integral part of the court's when setting aside a punishment due to . This stems from the decision in B. Karunakar, which prescribes a non-discretionary course to uphold natural justice without unduly rewarding the employee or mechanically quashing proceedings. [
#DisciplinaryEnquiry, #NaturalJustice, #LabourLaw
Hence, we are of the considered view that reasons given by the respondents for dispensing with the enquiry are not in consonance with the law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Courts and followed by this Tribunal in a catena of cases, a few of which cases are referred to hereinabove ... She, however, does not deny that the order passed by the learned Tribunal in the case of ASI Intikhab Alam has been duly implemented by the petitioners and consequently, a department....
Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside with liberty to respondent to pass fresh order after issuing show cause notice and granting opportunity of personal hearing. ... prior to passing impugned order. ... In the case in hand, the respondent by impugned order has blacklisted the petitioner for a period of 3 years. The order has been passed without iss....
is liable to be set aside reserving liberty to the concerned ESCOMs to hold enquiry in the matter in a time bound way. ... The Coordinate Bench of this Court, in identical circumstances, considering the termination orders passed by the respondent-Corporation against several employees, in terms of its order dated 31.08.2020, disposed the petitions by the following order: In the above circumstances, ... termination orders in W.P.No.43037/2015 and in W.....
The Tribunal adjourned the cases sine die with liberty to either of the parties to inform the court of the final outcome of the criminal cases pending in the CBI Special Court, Patiala, to revive this case at an appropriate time. 7. ... That the CAT Order dated 31.10.2006 was challenged by filling CWP No.1300 of 2007 before the Hon’ble High Court and the High Court was pleased to set aside the said order dated 31.1....
But, to hold it to be so, as done in the second part of paragraph No.2 of the reasoning carried in the impugned order, it is imperative that the names of those department's witnesses, who were mentioned in the charge-sheet, but not examined, be disclosed specifically in the order to record a sustainable ... it compulsory to hold enquiry afresh, is an issue that is always needed to be addressed. ... Recording of reasons for re-enquiry means the satisf....
Since the very foundation of the impugned order dated 30.08.2006 passed pursuant to the defective inquiry report is not liable to be sustained in the eyes of law, therefore, the impugned punishment order dated 30.08.2006 is liable to be set aside/quashed. ... United Commercial Bank, 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 212, the Hon'ble Apex Court set aside a dismissal order which was passed without giving employee an opportunity of cross-examination. 17. This #HL_STAR....
... ii) The impugned order dated 8/8/2008 passed by the respondent no.2 removing the petitioner from service is quashed and set aside with liberty to the respondent employer to hold a regular departmental enquiry against the petitioner in accordance with law and complete the same in ... The Court held that the summary enquiry under Regulation No.90 was not justified and set aside the punishment order. ... #HL_START....
Sriranga, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent, invited the attention of the Court to the Order dated 19.08.2024 in W.P.No.42659/2017 and submitted that, this Court has not reserved liberty to the petitioner to challenge the impugned proceedings, and therefore, the Writ Petition is devoid of merits ... to be set aside. ... such, the entire proceedings conducted by the respondent and arrived at the conclusion to hold the petitioner guilty under "other misconduct" ....
For the aforesaid reasons, we hold that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Board cannot be sustained in law and the same is liable to be set aside. The impugned appellate judgment dated 12.10.87 passed by the learned Board is therefore set aside. ... That being so, having set aside the impugned appellate judgment dated 12.10.87, we restore the settlement order dated 20.3.87 passed by the learned Deputy Commission....
AIR 1958 SC 36 , the Supreme Court held that it is not the form of termination order but the substance thereof that must be examined by the court to ascertain if the same is a penal or stigmatic order in nature and in appropriate cases, the court can tear the veil behind the ... The applicant has prayed for the following relief(s):- “a) Quash and set aside impugned order: - 1. Memo No. B-21l0/Recruitment/2013-2014 dated 30.01.2018 i....
Therefore, the said order was quashed by this Court and liberty was granted to hold a fresh enquiry. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was dismissed from service invoking the provisions of Rule 8(2)((b) of the Rules of 1991 without recording any satisfaction and reason as to why it was not reasonable and practicable to hold the enquiry.
The impugned order accordingly is set aside with the aforesaid liberty to the trial Court.
3. The petitioner challenged it before this Court in W.P.No.39882/1999 which was allowed by an order of this Court dated 20.1.2000. This Court quashed the impugned order reserving liberty to the respondent-KPTCL to hold a fresh enquiry in terms of the regulations. During the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, the petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.1999.
Lastly, while granting liberty by means of the order dated 23.10.2008 in Writ Petition No.1192 (S/S) of 2005 filed by the petitioner, this Court had observed to hold enquiry afresh in accordance with law from the stage of reply to the charge sheet keeping in view the observations made herein above in the judgment but the opposite parties have not held the enquiry in accordance with the law and the observations made by this Court. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that thrice the enquiry has been conducted by the respondents but all the times the enquiry ha....
The order impugned is quashed with liberty to the opposite parties to hold a fresh enquiry in accordance with law following the principles of natural justice from the stage of submission of reply to the charge-sheet. In case the opposite parties take a decision to hold the enquiry the same shall be held expeditiously, say, within a period of four months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before the authorities concerned.
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
