#departmental inquiry

The court quashed an ASI's dismissal, ruling that unsubstantiated fears of witness influence cannot bypass a departmental inquiry under Article 311(2)(b). The petitioner is entitled to reinstatement with consequential benefits but not back wages, while the department retains the option to initiate a fresh inquiry or await the outcome of criminal proceedings.

The Patna High Court quashed a Sub-Inspector's dismissal where the inquiry officer doubled as prosecutor and critical documents were withheld from the delinquent officer. The appellate authority also rejected the appeal without a hearing despite a court order, compounding the natural justice violations in the departmental proceeding.

Allahabad HC directs Lucknow Police Commissioner to initiate departmental inquiry against officers harassing a petitioner despite no FIR, reinforcing Article 21 protections. The ruling underscores accountability for extralegal police conduct and mandates safeguards against victimization.

Allahabad HC quashed a removal order against a UPMRCL employee after finding procedural violations, including denial of cross-examination and lack of evidence appreciation. The ruling reaffirms strict adherence to natural justice in departmental inquiries, impacting government employees facing disciplinary actions.

The Supreme Court ruled that a minor penalty imposed post-reinstatement in a departmental inquiry must relate back to the initial termination date, entitling the officer to back wages, notional benefits, and consequential promotions. The judgment quashed contempt proceedings with a cost of Rs. 10 lakhs and directed payment of arrears with interest, reinforcing the doctrine of retrospective effect in service law.

Bombay High Court ruled that dismissal from service for misconduct must be proportionate to the offence, considering the employee's service record and statutory principles. The Court set aside a dismissal order, emphasizing that minor misconduct-such as verbal altercations-does not warrant termination, especially where no financial or institutional harm was proven.

The Bombay High Court has held that denying a government employee access to the Inquiry Officer’s report before imposing compulsory retirement violates the fundamental principles of natural justice. This ruling reinforces that procedural fairness in disciplinary actions is non-negotiable - especially in public sector employment where livelihoods hang in the balance.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court holds that an Enquiry Officer’s limited questions to clarify evidence do not amount to acting as prosecutor, preserving natural justice. Crucially, the six-month timeline under Police Regulations applies only to initiating the inquiry, not to filing or deciding a revision, giving authorities flexibility in imposing major punishment without procedural invalidity. This protects disciplinary proceedings from being derailed by technicalities while upholding fairness.

Allahabad HC rules that oral evidence is a non-negotiable requirement under Rule 7 of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. The court quashed a punishment order and directed restoration of service benefits, reinforcing natural justice principles in departmental inquiries affecting government servants.

CAT Kolkata quashes disciplinary proceedings against a retired Group 'A' officer, ruling that once the disciplinary authority accepts an inquiry report under CCS (CCA) Rules 1965, it cannot later issue a disagreement note. The decision reinforces natural justice principles, protecting government employees from arbitrary post-facto revisions in disciplinary actions.

MP High Court rules that ordering a fresh inquiry report without introducing new evidence violates principles of natural justice, rendering the departmental proceedings biased. The ruling underscores that disciplinary authorities must not reopen inquiries based on identical material, affecting service law and employment disputes involving bank officers and public servants.

Allahabad High Court quashed a departmental inquiry initiated on a fresh complaint that failed to disclose binding court directions requiring document verification and affidavit submission. The ruling reinforces that non-compliance with judicial orders constitutes contempt, invalidating subsequent proceedings against the petitioner.

The Bombay High Court has quashed disciplinary action against an ONGC manager after a decade-long delay in inquiry, holding that such prolonged inaction violates natural justice and renders the order non-speaking. All service benefits, including back wages and seniority, must be restored within six weeks, setting a clear precedent for timely administrative justice in public sector employment.

Delhi High Court reinforces that disciplinary penalties must strictly align with the degree of misconduct proved. Removal from service based on a 'partly proved' corruption allegation-without full evidentiary backing-violates principles of natural justice and proportionality, warranting judicial intervention for government employees.

CAT Ahmedabad invoked the doctrine of proportionality to set aside the dismissal of a postman who failed to deliver 10,000 mail articles due to staff shortages and medical leave. The Tribunal remitted the punishment for reconsideration, emphasizing that disciplinary action must account for mitigating circumstances and natural justice principles under the CCS (CCA) Rules.