Monday, 31 January 2022

Conduct & Disciplinary Rules – 102 : (Compiled By Com Kayveeyes)

 Conduct & Disciplinary Rules – 102 : (Compiled By Com Kayveeyes)


17.“Petitioner a Bank employee was charged with withdrawal of money from account of a customer who had expired by forging the signature of the deceased – Relevant documents including the report of hand writing expert not supplied to petitioner – Enquiry held vitiated- Order of dismissal from service quashed- Reinstatement ordered”. Gurmit Singh Vilkhu v Panjab and Sind Bank & Ors. 2005(3) A.T.J. HC (M.P.) 302.

18.“Natural Justice – Charge of non-delivery of two insured letters – The said letters were delivered and Left Thump Impression (LTI) of the addressee followed by signature of identifying person obtained – LTI is more reliable proof of delivery as compared to the signature which may likely to vary- Enquiry held at a place which was not known to applicant – Held violation of principles of natural justice – Order of dismissal from service quashed- Reinstatement with all consequential benefits ordered”. Dayanand v Union of India & Ors. 2005(3) A.T.J. CAT (Allahabad) 278.

19.Charges – Burden of proof shifts to the delinquent officer only on satisfactory evidence and not otherwise. Hence, in the absence of such evidence, mere admission of the delinquent official cannot be used against him. ATC 1986 (2) 846 – K.Sundaramma v  Union of India & others – T.A. No. 53/1986 – arising out of O.J.C. No. 933/1979 – CAT, Cuttack Bench – 14.08.86.


20.The Supreme Court in the case of Karaipac and others Vs Union of India (AIR 197 SC 150) held that the rules of natural justice can operate only in area not covered by law validly made. In other words, they do not supplant Law but supplement it.

21.In Bhasidr Ganesh Ra Bhauttakak Vs Municipal Council and others ( 1986 (II) LLJ 108) the Bombay high court held as under – “the statutory bias is a well-recognized exemption to the doctrine of bias on which the actions are struck down as illegal and void

22.In P.R. Suresh Chandra Varma and others Vs Chancellor Nagpur University ( 1991 (I) LLJ 574) the Supreme Court held – “ when the services of the  appellants were terminated in view of the change in position of law and not on account of the demerits or misdemeanour  of individual it is not necessary to hear them before their services are terminated. The principles of natural justice do not apply in such cases”

23. In J. Mohapatra & Co Vs State of Orissa and another (1986 (I) SC 322) held – “so far as the AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM Rule is concerned both in England and in India it is well established that when a right to prior notice and an opportunity to be heard before an order as passed would obstruct the taking of prompt action, such a right can be excluded. If the rule be invoked it importing it would have the effect of paralyzing the administrative process or where the need for promptitude or the urgency of taking action so demands” 

24. In Ajay Kumar Minl Vs State of Bihar the High Court of Patna (1984 (I) LLJ 1) held – “non observation of principles of natural justice does not render the order of termination void and unenforceable. It has been held that where certain benefits are derived pursuant to forgeries, the rule of natural justice are not attracted and the concerned candidates cannot claim for being provided with any opportunity of hearing in such matter. No person can claim to keep an advantage which he has obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels everything”

25. According to Kerala High Court ( 1994 (II) LLJ 100 ) – “ if a person conceals certain material facts which if were disclosed would have disentitle  any person from getting the post, the termination of his service without enquiry was valid since the employment itself was void”


Post a Comment