of 1993 arising out of L.P. C No.
Union of India, Public Sector Corporations, Public Sector Banks, State Governments and two private parties.
The enquiry officer after giving full opportunity found him to have received illegal gratification in the stated instances and was guilty of the charges.
After companyducting an enquiry the enquiry officer submitted his report and the disciplinary authority while agreeing with the findings of guilt, reverted him by an order dated October21, 1987 as an Asstt.
4273 of 1986, 6232, 8735, 10174, 16275, 17186, 17484, 18262, 20035 of 1991, 89, 6587, 7252, 8147, 8642, 9885, 10589, 10790, 11641, 12265, 12456, 12531, 12727, 12948, 13577, 13695, 13815 and 16477 of 1992, 2414 and 5296 of 1993 AND C. A. Nos.
311 2 and it violates the principle of natural justice.
950 1500 fixing his initial pay as Rs.
The disciplinary authority by an order dated April 29, 1988 removed him from service.
4148/91 Union of India v. A. J. Shah, the respondent, while working as T.T.E. in S. E. Railway, was found to have companylected excess amounts from the passengers.
On March 13, 1987 the enquiry officer submitted his report finding that the respondent acted fraudulently and dishonestly in companyducting the business of the appellant companypany and acted thereby prejudicially to the interest of the companypany.
The Banking Regulation enjoins to supply it along with the order when served.
This group of matters is at the instance of various parties, viz.,
On its companysideration and agreeing with the findings, the disciplinary authority, by proceedings dated April 27, 1987, removed him from service and on appeal it was companyfirmed.
Kailash Chander Asthana v. State of U. P. 1988 3 SCC 600 AIR 1988 SC 1338 and Union of India v. Mohd.
In C.A. No.
The disciplinary authority agreed with the findings of the enquiry officer removed him from service by supplying him a companyy of the enquiry report along with the order of removal as required under Regulation 9 of the Bank of India Employees Disciplinary Appeal Regulations, 1976.
The single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed his writ petition but on appeal, the Division Bench, by judgment dated March 29, 1991 relying on the Union of India v. Mohd.
By an order dated 5th August, 1991 in Managing Director, Electronic Corporation of India v. Karunakar 1992 3 JT SC 605, a three Judge Bench of this Court referred that matter to the Chief Justice for being placed before a larger Bench, for the Bench found a companyflict in the two decisions of this Court, viz.,
Ramzan Khan 1991 1 SCC 588 AIR 1991 SC 471 both delivered by the Benches of three learned Judges.
The enquiry officer appointed in this behalf companyducted the enquiry, recorded the evidence, given him adequate opportunity to rebut the evidence.
It was set aside by the Tribunal, holding that number supply of the enquiry report was denial of opportunity under Art.
13813 of 1992 State of M.P. v. A. Sheshagiri Rao, the respondent, while working as Executive Engineer, was suspended by order dated 21st July, 1983.
Civil Appeal No.
during the inquiry as introduced by the 15th Amendment of the Constitution, did away with the opportunity of making representation against the penalty proposed after the inquiry.
The CAT at Cuttack set it aside as the enquiry report was number supplied to him holding that it resulted in denial of opportunity and violates the principles of natural justice.
main appeal while working as a Sr.
The enquiry officer had given him reasonable opportunity and after companypleting the enquiry submitted his report that the charges were proved against the respondent.
of 1993 arising out of S.L.P. C No.
3056 of 1991 arising out of SLP Civil No.
On March 11, 1983 a charge sheet was issued.
950/ .
In Civil Appeal No.
In all these cases the enquiry report was number supplied.
The High Court thereafter requested the Governor to remove the petitioner from service and the impugned order terminating the services of the petitioner was accordingly passed.
12103 of 1991 along with the other matters in which the same question of law is in issue, has, therefore, been referred to this Bench.
On appeal, it was companyfirmed.
Technical Officer, was served on December 27, 1986 with a Memorandum of Charges setting out the misconduct, said to have been companymitted by him, with details thereof that he had unauthorisedly sold T.V. sets.
with SLP Civil Nos.
The Tribunal set aside the order.
In this case the rules framed by the companypany does number require the supply of the companyy of the report to the delinquent.
On October 21, 1983 he was served with a charge sheet.
It is settled law that the disciplinary authority, by whatever name called, has power and jurisdiction to enquire into the misconduct by himself or by his delegate and to impose the penalty for proved misconduct of a delinquent.
AIR 1994 SC 1074 SAWANT, J. for himself and for M. N. Venkatachaliah, C. J. I. and S. Mohan and B. P. Jeevan Reddy, JJ.
4504 of 1990, 2935, 3742 43, 3747, 3750 52, 4072, 4083 85, 4148, 4421 23 and 4482 of 1991, 302, 1063, 1116, 2408 and 4630 of 1992 AND 611 and 662 63 of 1993, .
302 of 1992, Bank of India v. Vinodchandra Balkrishan Pandit, the respondent was served with a charge sheet on 10th August, 1982 accusing him of having companymitted misconduct by taking illegal gratification in his discharge of official duties.
In C.A. No.
In Civil Appeal No.
Enquiry Officer, after giving an opportunity to the respondent, submitted his report and the disciplinary authority agreeing with the findings of guilt recorded by the enquiry officer, reverted him to the grade of Ticket Collector in the pay scale of Rs.
Engineer.
17484 of 1991 Union of India v. Mohammed Naimulla, the respondent was working as an electrical fitter.
