Special Appeal Maintainable If Single Judge's Order Relates To Authority Acting Without Statutory Appellate Jurisdiction: Allahabad High Court Recall Of Witness For Cross-Examination Permissible On Newly Framed Issue Post-Remand Even If Disposal Timeline Is Fixed: Karnataka High Court Litigant Cannot Overcome Law Of Limitation By Shifting Blame On Counsel Through Inconsistent Stands: Madras High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Preventive Detention Not Warranted If Person Can Be Dealt With Under Ordinary Laws; No Effort To Arrest In Pending Cases: Supreme Court Accused Languishing In Jail For 9 Years Deserves Bail; Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Violated: Supreme Court Election Disputes Must Be Resolved Expeditiously; Long Stays Render Adjudication A Mockery Of Justice: Madras High Court Delhi High Court Suspends LOC, Permits Businessman To Travel Abroad For Healthcare Conferences; Cites Roots In Society & Past Compliance Section 138 NI Act Complaint Not Maintainable By Third Party Who Is Neither Payee Nor Holder In Due Course: Allahabad High Court Writ Petition Cannot Be Dismissed On ‘Forum Non Conveniens’ If Respondent's Office Is Within Court's Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Supreme Court Doubts 'Sajjan Singh' Ruling; Refers To Larger Bench Whether Third Judge Can Re-examine Unanimous Findings Under Section 392 CrPC SARFAESI Sale Vitiated If Balance 75% Bid Amount Is Paid Beyond 15 Days Without Written Extension Agreement: Supreme Court Delhi High Court Can't Refuse Writ Petition Against BSF Dismissal Merely Because Cause Of Action Arose Outside Delhi: Supreme Court Private Rights Must Yield To Public Interest: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs Removal Of Encroachments On Public Road Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Re-Agitate Factual Disputes Or Seek Re-Hearing On Merits: Allahabad High Court Recovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act Vitiated If Police Already Present At Spot Before Arrival Of Panch Witnesses: Bombay High Court Mere Non-Compliance Or Delay In Procedure Under Section 52A NDPS Act Is An Irregularity, Not An Illegality Entitling Accused To Bail: Calcutta High Court Recovery Of Weapon Used In Commission Of Offence Not A Sine Qua Non For Conviction If Ocular Evidence Is Corroborated: Allahabad High Court Seized Vehicles Shouldn't Be Kept Idle To Rot In Police Stations, Utility Vanishes Due To Stagnation: Karnataka High Court Or 39 CPC | Trial Court Erred In Dismissing Injunction Application Despite Respondent's 'No Objection' To Restraining Share Transfer: Gauhati High Court Issuing NBW Merely For Absence Of Accused Already On Bail Is Improper; Liberty Cannot Be Dealt With Lightly: Orissa High Court 138 NI | Expert Examination Of Disputed Documents Essential For Just Adjudication If Complainant Denies Handwriting & Signatures: Rajasthan High Court Order 41 Rule 27 CPC Cannot Be Invoked To Fill Lacunae In Evidence If Party Voluntarily Closed Evidence In Trial Court: Delhi High Court

Punjab and Haryana High Court Quashes Dismissal Order, Citing Violation of Natural Justice

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside a dismissal order issued against Sheetal Sharma, citing a violation of natural justice. Justice Pankaj Jain, while delivering the judgment, stated, "The extreme punishment of dismissal awarded to a delinquent cannot be viewed lightly," emphasizing the importance of conducting a proper inquiry before imposing such a severe penalty. The court further highlighted the need for adherence to the principles of natural justice in disciplinary proceedings.

The case pertained to Sheetal Sharma, who served as a Junior Assistant with respondent No. 3. She was booked in an FIR under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Sohana, District SAS Nagar Mohali, resulting in her arrest and subsequent judicial custody. Despite her custodial status, the department proceeded with an inquiry against her, which she argued was conducted without her knowledge or opportunity to defend herself effectively.

Justice Jain observed that the State, as the petitioner's employer, should have been more considerate and pragmatic in handling the matter. "The State ought to have waited at least until the petitioner was bailed out from judicial custody," remarked the judge. The court further pointed out that the petitioner had not been convicted in the criminal case, and until proven guilty, she could not be deemed a convict.

Highlighting the violation of natural justice, Justice Jain noted that the inquiry officer's report and related documents were not supplied to the petitioner, contrary to the requirements of Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The court cited previous judgments, including Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad v. B. Karunahar (1993) 4 SCC 727, which stressed the importance of providing the accused with a fair and reasonable opportunity to defend themselves.

High Court set aside the dismissal order and subsequent order passed against Sheetal Sharma. The court granted the respondents the liberty to pass a fresh order in accordance with the law. This ruling emphasizes the significance of upholding principles of natural justice and ensuring a fair and just inquiry process in disciplinary proceedings.

Date of Decision: 31st May 2023

Sheetal Sharma @ Kanwaljeet Kaur VS State of Punjab and ors. 

Latest Legal News