Jharkhand High Court: Non-furnishing of enquiry report not detrimental to departmental proceeding, if no prejudice caused to employee

Must Read

Delhi HC: Mens Rea Essential Before Passing an Order U/S 14b of EPF Act

  In the matter of M/s Durable Doors and Windows v APFC, Gurugram, the bench allowed the Petitioner's appeal holding...

Delhi HC: Language of Statement and Testimony of Complainant Need Not Be Identical

A single-judge bench of J. Vibhu Bakhru of the Delhi High Court upheld the accused's conviction in Kailash @...

COVID Results Shall Be Conveyed To the Person Within 24 Hours: Delhi High Court

The order has come in a writ petition moved by Rakesh Malhotra. The Petitioner herein seeks to ramp up...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside the Order of the Trial Court in the Chief Secretary Assault Case

In the case of Mr. Arvind Kejriwal & Anr. V. State NCT of Delhi, Mr.Justice Suresh Kumar Kait has...

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vintage Moments’ Alcohol Sale in Case of Trademark Infringement

The manufacturers of the Alcohol Brand Magic Moments had filed a suit. The Delhi High Court has passed an...

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work,...

Follow us

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi’s Single Judge Bench, J. Hearing a written petition seeking to quash the order embraced by the respondent in which the petitioner was punished for a six-month suspension of the annual increase in the departmental proceedings.

Facts

The petitioner was a constable accused of coercion and was alleged to have had a thumb impression on a blank document. He was also charged with several offences under separate parts of the 1860 Penal Code. According to that charge, the Enquiry Officer was assigned and departmental proceedings were launched against the petitioner. The charges against the petitioner were proven, and he was not provided with an enquiry report in the first instance, but in conjunction with the second show cause notice.

Learned petitioner counsel, D.K. Dubey claimed that the woman who produced the charge told the officer that she had not submitted any request to the petitioner, nor did she know him. He further asserted that she had made no complaint against the petitioner. Counsel, therefore, pleaded that if there were no charges against the petitioner, then the order was fit to be quashed.

Rajesh Kumar Singh, a learned respondent counsel, presented that the accused took the impression on a blank document and indicated that no explanation was provided to her for the same in the complaint petition. It also came to her understanding later that no complaint was lodged against the petitioner. The counsel further presented that the lady’s statement that no complaint was lodged against the accused was made under coercion.

Court’s Observation

The Court observed that the enquiry officer took into account the two complaints which were brought on record in the writ petition and the enquiry officer came to a conclusion that usage of coercion to obtain the statement in favour of the petitioner could not be ruled out and therefore, the petitioner was held guilty.

The Court noted that there was no illegality in the investigation report and that the penalty order was in accordance with the law. Moreover, the Court noted that if an employee was dismissed or removed from service and the inquiry was set aside because the report was not furnished to him, the failure to furnish the report would prejudice him or could not affect the nature of the punishment at all.

In the present case, however, the petitioner was unable to show what prejudice had been caused to him owing to failure to provide the inquiry report. The petition was therefore dismissed.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Delhi HC: Mens Rea Essential Before Passing an Order U/S 14b of EPF Act

  In the matter of M/s Durable Doors and Windows v APFC, Gurugram, the bench allowed the Petitioner's appeal holding that mens rea is an...

Delhi HC: Language of Statement and Testimony of Complainant Need Not Be Identical

A single-judge bench of J. Vibhu Bakhru of the Delhi High Court upheld the accused's conviction in Kailash @ Balli v State. The bench...

COVID Results Shall Be Conveyed To the Person Within 24 Hours: Delhi High Court

The order has come in a writ petition moved by Rakesh Malhotra. The Petitioner herein seeks to ramp up testing facilities in Delhi.   Facts of...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside the Order of the Trial Court in the Chief Secretary Assault Case

In the case of Mr. Arvind Kejriwal & Anr. V. State NCT of Delhi, Mr.Justice Suresh Kumar Kait has set aside the 24.07.2019 Order...

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vintage Moments’ Alcohol Sale in Case of Trademark Infringement

The manufacturers of the Alcohol Brand Magic Moments had filed a suit. The Delhi High Court has passed an order restraining the manufacturing, marketing,...

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work, except the drinking water component...

There Can Be No Leniency Shown To Appellant Who Pleaded To Reduce Sentence: Delhi High Court

Facts On 25.2.2016 the victim’s sister who was 13 years old was present with her sister who was 2 years old (victim) at their home....

Violation of Executive Instructions Cannot Be Sole Ground to Invalidate Transfer Orders: Tripura High Court

In Dr Bithika Choudhury vs the State of Tripura & Ors., a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S.G. Chattopadhyay...

Case Regarding Anticipatory Bail, Applicant May Be Released Imposing Suitable Conditions: Gujarat High Court

A Single-Judge Bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Dr Justice A.P. Thakur had been hearing submissions of the Applicant to release him...

Proof of Infliction of Fatal Injury Not Mandatory for Conviction Under Section 307, IPC: Tripura High Court

In the case of Mamin Miah vs the State of Tripura, a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S....

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -