Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Article 21-A Cannot Be Held Hostage to Transfer Preferences: Allahabad High Court Upholds Teacher Redeployment to Enforce Pupil–Teacher Ratio Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contract Or Travel Beyond Pleadings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes ₹5.18 Crore Award Director’ in GeM Clause 29 Does Not Mean ‘Independent Director’: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Technical Disqualification Section 25(3) Is Sacrosanct – Removal of a Trademark Cannot Rest on a Defective Notice: Delhi High Court Not Every Broken Promise Is Rape: Delhi High Court Draws Clear Line Between ‘Suspicion’ and ‘Grave Suspicion’ in False Promise to Marry Case Section 37 Is Not A Second Appeal On Merits: Delhi High Court Refuses To Re-Appreciate Evidence In Challenge To Arbitral Award Recovery After Retirement Is Clearly Impermissible: Bombay High Court Shields Retired Teacher From ₹2.80 Lakh Salary Recovery Paying Tax Does Not Legalise Illegality: Bombay High Court Refuses to Shield Alleged Unauthorized Structure Beneficial Pension Scheme Cannot Be Defeated By Cut-Off Dates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs EPFO To Follow Sunil Kumar B. Guidelines On Higher Pension Claims Equity Aids the Vigilant, Not Those Who Sleep Over Their Rights: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses to Revive 36-Year-Old Pay Parity Claim Students Cannot Be Penalised For Legislative Invalidity: Supreme Court Protects Degrees Granted Before 2005 Yash Pal Verdict Restructuring Without Fulfilment of Conditions Cannot Defeat Insolvency: Supreme Court Reaffirms Default as the Sole Trigger Under Section 7 IBC Section 100-A CPC Slams The Door On Intra-Court Appeals In RERA Matters”: Allahabad High Court Declares Special Appeal Not Maintainable Mental Distance Between ‘May Be’ and ‘Must Be’ Is Long: Patna High Court Acquits Six in Murder Case Built on Broken Chain of Circumstances Where Corruption Takes Roots, Rule of Law Is Replaced by Rule of Transaction: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to DIG Harcharan Singh Bhullar Mere Voter List and Corrected SSC Certificate Cannot Prove Paternity: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects 21-Year-Old Bid for DNA Test in Partition Appeal Section 147 NI Act Makes Offence Compoundable At Any Stage: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Concurrent Convictions in Cheque Bounce Case After Settlement Bald Allegations of Adultery Based on Suspicion Cannot Dissolve a Marriage: Jharkhand High Court Once a Document Is Admitted in Evidence, Its Stamp Defect Cannot Be Reopened: Madras High Court

Punjab and Haryana High Court Dismisses Writ Petition, Affirms Authority’s Decision to Order Fresh Inquiry

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking the quashing of a chargesheet and dismissal order in the case of Sawran Singh versus State of Punjab and another. Justice Pankaj Jain, presiding over the case, upheld the authority’s decision to order a fresh inquiry after the petitioner raised concerns about fairness during the initial proceedings.

Justice Jain stated in the judgment, “The authority acted in accordance with the regulations by ordering a fresh inquiry when the petitioner raised concerns about fairness. The right to receive the report of the Inquiry Officer is an essential part of the reasonable opportunity of defending oneself.”

The petitioner, who was employed as a Clerk with the respondent Board, had been served with a chargesheet on July 30, 1990. Following a departmental inquiry, the petitioner was found guilty, leading to the issuance of a dismissal order. However, the petitioner alleged that he was not dealt with fairly during the inquiry and pleaded innocence.

After considering the petitioner’s concerns, the authority opted to withdraw the show cause notice and ordered a fresh inquiry. Despite being aware of the proceedings, the petitioner deliberately chose not to participate in the second inquiry. Consequently, the authority dismissed the petitioner from services based on the fresh inquiry report.

The court emphasized the importance of providing a fair opportunity for the delinquent employee to respond to the findings of the inquiry officer before the authority made its own conclusions. Justice Jain added, “Denial of this right would be a denial of fair opportunity and natural justice.”

The judgment cited legal precedents, including the Constitution Bench decision in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad vs. B. Karunakaran, to support the conclusion that the authority’s action was in line with the principles of natural justice.

Date of decision : 11.05.2023

Sawran Singh   vs State of Punjab and another

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Swaran-vs-State-PH-HC-15-May1.pdf"]

Latest Legal News