Tag Archives: departmental enquiries

Powers of District Inspector of Schools – Suspension of Head or a Teacher

An order of suspension of the Head or a Teacher, as the case may be, would become inoperative after lapse of sixty days but would continue to exist though inoperative but would become effective immediately on approval of District Inspector of Schools. In the event of the District Inspector of Schools disapproving the suspension, the order would become non est and would not exist in the eye of law unless the order of disapproval is set aside by the competent court/authority.         The District Inspector of Schools while exercising power under sub-section (7) of Section 16 G of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act acts in a supervisory capacity. He has to record brief reason to accord approval or disapproval to any order of suspension passed by the Management. The District Inspector of Schools has to examine the papers so transmitted but would have no right to address on the merit of the charges, but has only to see on, prima facie basis, as to whether, charges have any substance. The issue in that regard has to be examined in departmental enquiry to be held against the Principal/Teacher. Committee of Management, D.P.S.N. Inter College v. State of U.P., 2018 (5) AWC 4767.

Leave a comment

Filed under Power of District Inspector of Schools

Non-Holding of Oral Inquiry – Is a Serious Flaw

In Salahuddin Ansari v. State of U.P., 2008 (3) ESC 1667, it was held that non holding of oral inquiry is a serious flaw which can vitiate the order of disciplinary proceeding including the order or punishment. It was held as under:

        “Non-holding of oral inquiry in such a case, is a serious matter and goes to the root of the case.         In Subhash Chandra Sharma v. Managing Director, 2000 (1) UPLBEC 541, while considering the question as to whether holding of an inquiry is necessary or not, held that if no oral inquiry is held, it amounts to denial of principles of natural justice to the delinquent employee.” Mohan Law Garg v. State of U.P., (2019) 2 UPLBEC 1184.

Leave a comment

Filed under Oral Inquiry

Mere Lack of Efficiency and Skill – Does Not Constitute Misconduct

In Shabih Haider v. State of U.P., 2018 (1) ADJ 327 it was held that the order of suspension is not to be passed in a routine manner but the competent authority is required to consider the gravity of the misconduct sought to be enquired into or investigated and the nature of the evidence placed before the appointing authority. The power of the State Government to place Government Servant under suspension is creature of the Statute and/or contract and the decision be taken keeping in view the letter and spirit of the Statute. The power of suspension arises when on an objective consideration the appointing authority is of the view that a formal disciplinary inquiry is expected or is proceeding. It was also held placing reliance on decision of a Five Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in State of U.P. v. Jai Sing Dixit, 1974 ALJ 92, that mere lack of efficiency or skill does not ipso facto constitute misconduct and call for suspension of a Government Servant. Vijay Kumar Agarwal v. State of U.P., 2020 (1) AWC 646.

Leave a comment

Filed under Lack of Efficiency and Skill

Departmental and Criminal Proceedings – Are Different

The law is fairly well settled. Acquittal by a criminal court would not debar an employer from exercising power in accordance with the Rules and Regulations in force. The two proceedings, criminal and departmental, are entirely different. They operate in different fields and have different objectives. Whereas the object of criminal trial is to inflict appropriate punishment on the offender, the purpose of enquiry proceedings is to deal with the delinquent departmentally and to impose penalty in accordance with the service rules. In a criminal trial, incriminating statement made by the accused in certain circumstances or before certain officers is totally inadmissible in evidence. Such strict rules of evidence and procedure would not apply to departmental proceedings. The degree of proof which is necessary to order a conviction is different from the degree of proof necessary to record the commission of delionquency. The rule relating to appreciation of evidence in the two proceedings is also not similar. In criminal law, burden of proof is on the prosecution and unless the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused “beyond reasonable doubt”, he cannot be convicted by a court of law. In a departmental enquiry, on the other hand, penalty can be imposed on the delinquent officer on a finding recorded on the basis of “preponderance of probability”. Acquittal by the Trial Court, therefore, does not ipso facto, absolve the employee from the liability under the disciplinary jurisdiction. Om Prakash Singh v. State Bank of India, 2016 (150) FLR 939.

Leave a comment

Filed under departmental and criminal proceedings, Uncategorized

Disciplinary Proceedings – Conclusion of

Disciplinary Proceedings are said to conclude when the disciplinary authority passes an order on the report of the Enquiry Officer. On receipt of the enquiry report the disciplinary authority may adopt any of the following three courses:
(a) He may accept the finding of guilt recorded by the enquiry officer and after supplying copy of the enquiry report to the delinquent employee, proceed to pass the penalty order.
(b) He may disagree with the findings of the enquiry officer and remit the matter for further enquiry.
(c) He may disagree with the findings of the enquiry officer exonerating the employee and himself after giving show cause notice to the employee, proceed to pass orders imposing penalty on the delinquent employee
Thus, disciplinary proceedings do not conclude merely with the recording of findings by the enquiry officer when he submits the enquiry report. Gulam Gausul Azam and others v. State of U.P., 2014 (5) AWC 4657.

Leave a comment

Filed under Conclusion of Disciplinary Proceedings, Employment Law

Departmental Enquiry against a Retired Employee

In a recent Judgment of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court it was held as under:
“A retired employee who is no longer in service cannot be inflicted any punishment of dismissal or removal from service, reversion or reduction in rank and stoppage of increments etc. It is only by virtue of specific rule permitting imposition of punishment after retirement that the appointing authority can do so and if necessary after taking leave of the authority concerned. This logically means that when a retired employee cannot be punished as aforesaid there is no point in continuing a departmental enquiry against him once he has been superannuated.” Shiv Ram Verma v. U.P. Co-operative Union Ltd., 2013 (6) AWC 5908.

Leave a comment

Filed under Employment Law, Retired Employee