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 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