Bail | Right to Speedy Trial is a Fundamental Right Under Article 21: PH High Court    |     Postal Department’s Power to Enhance Penalties Time-Barred, Rules Allahabad High Court    |     Tenants Cannot Cross-Examine Landlords Unless Relationship is Disputed: Madras High Court    |     NDPS | Conscious Possession Extends to Vehicle Drivers: Telangana High Court Upholds 10-Year Sentence in Ganja Trafficking Case    |     Aid Reduction Of Without Due Process Unlawful: Rajasthan High Court Restores Full Grants for Educational Institutions    |     Assessment of Notional Income in Absence of Proof Cannot Be 'Mathematically Precise,' Says Patna High Court    |     NCLT's Resolution Plan Overrides State Tax Claims: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Demands Against Patanjali Foods    |     An Agreement is Not Voidable if the Party Could Discover the Truth with Ordinary Diligence: Calcutta High Court Quashes Termination of LPG Distributorship License    |     Independent Witnesses Contradict Prosecution's Story: Chhattisgarh High Court Acquit Accused in Arson Case    |     Merely Being a Joint Account Holder Does Not Attract Liability Under Section 138 of NI Act:  Gujarat High Court    |     Higher Court Cannot Reappreciate Evidence Unless Perversity is Found: Himachal Pradesh High Court Refused to Enhance Maintenance    |     Perpetual Lease Allows Division of Property: Delhi High Court Affirms Partition and Validity of Purdah Wall    |     "Party Autonomy is the Backbone of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Upholds Sole Arbitrator Appointment Despite Party’s Attempts to Frustrate Arbitration Proceedings    |     Videography in Temple Premises Limited to Religious Functions: Kerala High Court Orders to Restrict Non-Religious Activities on Temple Premises    |     Past Service Must Be Counted for Pension Benefits: Jharkhand High Court Affirms Pension Rights for Daily Wage Employees    |     'Beyond Reasonable Doubt’ Does Not Mean Beyond All Doubt: Madras High Court Upholds Life Imprisonment for Man Convicted of Murdering Mother-in-Law    |    

Legal Fiction Limitation in Disciplinary Proceedings for Retired Employees: Supreme Court

05 September 2024 5:38 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the interpretation of legal fiction in Regulation 20 of the 1979 Regulations, emphasizing its applicability to retired employees. The decision, delivered by Justices Hima Kohli and Rajesh Bindal, has clarified the limitations of this legal fiction in disciplinary proceedings.

The Court stated, "The legal fiction in Clause (iii) of Sub-Regulation 20(3) of the 1979 Regulations must be confined to cases where disciplinary proceedings have been initiated prior to an employee's retirement." It emphasized that the initiation of disciplinary proceedings is not triggered by the mere issuance of a show cause notice but only when a chargesheet is issued, signifying the date of application of mind.

Regulation 20 of the 1979 Regulations had been a subject of debate, with the Court confirming that these regulations do not independently provide for the initiation and conduct of disciplinary proceedings. Instead, the complete procedure for disciplinary proceedings is outlined in the 1976 Regulations. The Court upheld the principles laid down in earlier judgments, emphasizing that an employee must be in service for an order of removal or dismissal to be valid.

In light of these findings, the Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant-Bank, which argued for a different interpretation of the legal fiction. Additionally, the Court addressed the issue of non-payment of subsistence allowance to the deceased employee. The Court ordered the appellant-Bank to pay all service benefits due to the deceased employee, along with interest at 7% per annum from the date of his retirement, to his legal heirs within three months.

This judgment settles the controversy surrounding Regulation 20 of the 1979 Regulations, providing clarity on the scope and applicability of the legal fiction in disciplinary proceedings for retired employees. The Court's decision emphasizes the importance of initiating disciplinary proceedings before an employee's retirement to invoke the legal fiction effectively.

Date of Decision: 12 October 2023

UCO BANK AND OTHERS vs M.B. MOTWANI (DEAD) THR. LRS. & OTHERS

Similar News