9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Violation of principles of natural justice in the disciplinary proceedings. Analysis: The appellant-Bank initiated a departmental enquiry against the respondent, a Clerk-cum-Cashier, for misconduct as per the First Bipartite Settlement. The respondent denied the charges orally, did not file a written explanation, and boycotted the enquiry process. The Enquiry Officer sent evidence and letters to the respondent, who did not respond. The Enquiry Officer found the respondent guilty, and the Disciplinary Authority issued a show cause notice. The respondent requested exoneration, but the Disciplinary Authority discharged him based on the enquiry findings. The respondent's appeal was dismissed, leading to a writ petition in the Orissa High Court, which found a violation of natural justice and set aside the orders. The Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that the High Court's conclusion of a violation of natural justice was unjustified. The Court emphasized that the respondent had avoided participating in the disciplinary proceedings and had not defended himself against the charges. It was noted that an employee cannot later claim denial of a fair opportunity to defend himself if he had refused to engage in the disciplinary process. Therefore, the Court held that the High Court's order was erroneous and set it aside. In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, overturned the High Court's order, and dismissed the respondent's writ petition. No costs were awarded in this case.
|
