Topic
A departmental enquiry in Indian law is an internal administrative proceeding against a government employee for alleged misconduct, governed by service rules like the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, and principles of natural justice.
The Manipur High Court ruled that a CISF constable cannot be summarily dismissed under Article 311(2) unless the authority’s satisfaction is supported by objective evidence, not merely subjective belief. This safeguards service members from arbitrary termination and mandates a proper departmental enquiry.
The Allahabad High Court ruled that a personal altercation unrelated to official duties cannot be classified as misconduct under RBI regulations, thereby upholding the employee’s dismissal. It also ordered the bank to pay pending salary arrears and retiral benefits. This clarifies the scope of disciplinary liability for RBI staff.
MP High Court reinforces that prolonged suspension without concluding departmental enquiry violates natural justice, relying on the Supreme Court's Ajay Kumar Chaudhary judgment. The court directed expeditious disposal of the suspension review within four weeks, setting a critical timeline for service law compliance affecting government employees.
The Bombay High Court upholds the removal of a CRPF constable for chronic absenteeism and being found under the influence of liquor while on duty, affirming that such conduct constitutes gross misconduct under service law. This ruling reinforces that disciplinary authorities may impose major penalties without requiring proof of operational harm, as the breach of discipline itself undermines institutional integrity.
MP High Court rules that departmental enquiries cannot proceed against retired employees unless service regulations explicitly permit post-retirement continuation. The ruling quashes a charge-sheet issued after retirement, emphasizing that employer-employee relationship terminates upon retirement in the absence of such provisions, while allowing alternative legal action for alleged misconduct.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that even when a government employee is acquitted in a criminal case, the departmental enquiry can proceed independently on the same facts, as the standards of proof differ - criminal acquittal under beyond reasonable doubt does not equate to exoneration under preponderance of probabilities. This reaffirms that public service discipline remains a separate sphere, affecting all state employees facing parallel proceedings.
Bombay High Court quashed MSEDCL’s punishment order, ruling that documentary evidence alone is insufficient in departmental enquiries without examining witnesses or allowing cross-examination. The judgment reinforces that natural justice principles require oral proof for disciplinary actions, impacting service law proceedings across public sector employment.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has upheld the demotion of a Station House Officer for gross supervisory negligence in detaining a 16-year-old juvenile without verifying his age or transferring him to a juvenile justice board, violating mandatory safeguards under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. This ruling establishes that police officers bear direct accountability for procedural failures affecting juveniles - even when subordinates commit the immediate violations.
Bombay High Court rules that reinstatement with partial back wages (30%) is justified unless the employer proves the employee was gainfully employed during suspension. The judgment underscores the burden of proof on employers in disproportionate punishment cases under labour law.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that government servants found under the influence of liquor while on duty can be terminated without the department needing to prove their work performance was impaired. This establishes Rule 23 as a strict conduct standard, not a performance-based one, significantly raising the bar for discipline in public service and affecting all state employees in Madhya Pradesh.
Jharkhand High Court quashed a bank employee's dismissal, ruling that documentary evidence alone is insufficient in departmental proceedings without oral witness examination. The judgment reaffirms that natural justice principles require live testimony to substantiate charges, impacting disciplinary actions across employment law.
Madhya Pradesh High Court quashes minor penalty orders for violating Rule 16(i)(b) of the MP Civil Services Rules, 1966, holding that disciplinary authorities must explicitly record an opinion on whether an enquiry is necessary before imposing minor penalties. The ruling reinforces procedural safeguards in departmental proceedings, impacting all government employees in Madhya Pradesh.
Rajasthan High Court rules that departmental enquiries must strictly adhere to principles of natural justice, even if the delinquent is absent. The department cannot rely on unverified documents to prove charges, and procedural lapses render the enquiry void. The ruling reinforces that the burden of proof remains with the department, protecting employees from arbitrary dismissals.
MP High Court rules that withholding pension or gratuity solely due to an uncharged FIR violates CCS Pension Rules, mandating payment with interest. The judgment reinforces natural justice principles, protecting retired employees from financial hardship pending criminal proceedings.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has ruled that failure to conclude a departmental enquiry within the mandatory two-month window under G.O.Ms.No.91 violates the right to speedy justice under Article 21, rendering any prolonged suspension unlawful unless supported by a separate, independent order. This sets a binding standard for all state departments conducting disciplinary proceedings against public employees in Andhra Pradesh.