Monday, January 31, 2022
Conduct & Disciplinary Rules – 103
CASE LAW ON PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE
26. In the case of State of UP Vs State Law Officers Association (1994 (I) CLR 668) the Supreme Court held – “in the absence of guidelines, the appointments may be made purely on personal or political consideration and be arbitrary. This being so those who come to be appointed by such arbitrary procedure can hardly complain if the termination of their services is equally arbitrary. There need be no legal anxiety to save them.
27. Natural Justice
in Disciplinary Proceedings:
The aim of Natural Justice is to secure
justice or to put it negatively, to prevent miscarriage of justice. These rules
operate only in areas not covered by any law validly made. In other words they
do not supplant the law but supplement it.
[Supreme Court - (1969) 2 SCC 262; AIR 1970 SC 150 - A.K. Kraipak vs. Union of India]
28. There must be
ever present to the mind of men the fact that our laws of procedure are
grounded on the principle of Natural Justice which require that men should not
be condemned unheard, that decisions should not be reached behind their backs,
that proceedings which affect their lives and property should not continue in
their absence and that they should not be precluded from participating in such
proceedings.
[Ramseth vs. Collector of Dharbang, AIR 155 PAT 345]
29. The expression
'Natural Justice' conveys the notion that the result of the process should be
just. There are two concepts underlying this doctrine, namely, the authority
deciding the dispute should be impartial and the party to be affected should be
given full and fair opportunity of being heard.
[C. Pitchiah vs. Andhra University - 1961 ALT. 317, AIR 1961 AP 465]
30. The term
'misconduct' means an act done willfully with a wrong intention and as applied
to professional people; it includes unprofessional acts, even though such acts
are not inherently wrongful. It also means a dereliction of or deviation from
duty.
[Nahood Ali Khan, Inre, AIR 1958 AP 116]
31. Provisions of
Article 311 of the Constitution in Disciplinary Cases:
The implications of the provisions of
Article 311 have been the subject of a close examination by the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court has given exhaustive interpretation of the various aspects
involved and they provide the administrative authorities authoritative
guidelines in dealing with disciplinary cases.
[Purushotham Lal Dhingra vs. Union of
India, AIR 1958 SC 36; Khem Chand vs. Union of India, AIR 1958 SC 300; and
Union of India and another vs. Tlusiram Patel, 1985(2) SLR SC 576]
32. Articles 310 and 311 apply to Government servants, whether permanent, temporary, officiating or on probation.
[Purushotham Lal Dhingra vs. Union of India, AIR 1958 SC 36]
33. Administration action is subject to judicial review on
four grounds:
(i) Illegality
(ii) Irrationality
(iii) Procedural
impropriety and,
(iv) Doctrine
of proportionality of penalty or duty to act justly
Union
of India Vs. Paramananda (AIR 1989 SC 1185) Shankar Das Vs. Union of India AIR
1985 SC 772)
Sunday, January 30, 2022
Saturday, January 29, 2022
Conduct & Disciplinary Rules – 102
CASE LAW ON PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE
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.
CASE LAW ON NON APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE
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”
List of Health Care Organizations (HCOs) as on January 2022 in CGHS Chennai
List of Health Care Organizations (HCOs) as on January 2022 in CGHS Chennai (Including Pondicherry,Tiruchy & Tirunelveli) can be viewed here
SB Order 02/2022
SB Order 02/2022
Gist of contents:
i. Instructions regarding submission of PAN during opening or within six months is re-iterated.
ii. Correctness of PAN number to be verified online by availing facility provided by NSDL.
iii. Transactions above Rs.50000- cannot be done by FINACLE without PAN validation. (Warning displayed for Form-60 users)
iv. SOP for online validation of PAN provided.
View the completer order :: SB Order 02/2022
Rotational Transfer Guidelines for the year 2022
DoP Letter No. X-12/1/2019-SPN-II-Part(I) dated 28.01.2022
Friday, January 28, 2022
Thursday, January 27, 2022
Conduct & Disciplinary Rules – 101
CASE LAW ON PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE
13. According to High Court of Orissa (1994 (I) LLJ 798) the violations of principles of natural justice as pointed out by different courts are as under:
i.
The enquiry officer should not assume the role of prosecutor or witness (1973
(II) LLJ 316)
ii.
Failure to comply with the mandatory provisions of Rule 14 & 15 of CCS (
CCA ) Rules 1965 before awarding of punishment amounts to violation of
principle of natural justice ( 1981 (II) LLJ 25 )
iii.
Enquiry cannot be conducted by a subordinate to the complainant especially when
the superior officer is also a witness in the case (1990 (II) LLJ 23)
iv.
Refusal to grant time to the delinquent employee to submit his explanation
amounts to violation of principles of natural justice (1990 (II) LLJ 273)
v.
Non furnishing of the report viz. the report of enquiry officer would amount to
violation of rules of natural justice (1991 (I) LLJ 30 (SC))
vi.
Denial to supply copy of the inspection report so far as it relate to the
allegation infracted principle of natural justice (1991 (I) LLJ130 Orissa HC )
vii.
Witness examined in one enquiry cannot be regarded as witness examined in
another enquiry and findings based on such evidence violate the rule of natural
justice (1992 (I) LLJ 597)
viii.
It is a fact that on two previous occasion disciplinary proceedings were
started and dropped against the delinquent by the Electricity Board. The
delinquent employee wanted to have a look at and peruse the records in which
decision was taken to drop earlier proceedings. Refusal to supply the aforesaid
document asked for the delinquent employee amount to denial of principles of
natural justice (1990 (II) LLJ 273)
ix. When there was omission on the part of
part of the management to put the employee on notice of the move on the part of
the management to look into consideration the past record of the service of the
employee in the matter of imposition of the punishment, there was a violation
of principles of natural justice (1990 (I) LLJ 298)
x.
The charge sheet issued almost a decade after alleged incident would be
violative of principles of natural justice and thus illegal (1994 L (II) LLJ
287)
xi. A look at the impugned award shows that
the entire domestic enquiry was completed in one day and no opportunity of
defence was given to the workman. It can thus be said that the enquiry was held
in total disregard and in fragrant violation of the principles of natural
justice (1995 (I) LLJ 272)
xii. The Supreme Court and several other High Courts had held that a complaint of violation of a fact of natural justice has to be examined on the touch stone of prejudice.
14. “Natural Justice- Promotion – Disciplinary proceedings held against the petitioner – Found guilty – challenged- Non-examination of the important and indispensable witness – Held, violation of principles of natural justice – Impugned punishment order quashed- Direction given to promote the petitioner as DSP w.e.f. the date of promotion of his immediate junior with all consequential benefits”. P. Erajan v Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tirunelveli Range – 2005(3) A.T.J. HC (Mad.) 218
15.“Non supply of disagreement note of General Manager,
Board of Vigilance and CVC by disciplinary authority- Violation of Article 14
of Constitution – Impugned punishment quashed”.
Mahatam v Union of India & others 2005(3) A.T.J. CAT(LUCHNOW) 232.
16.“Natural Justice- Non supply of preliminary enquiry report
and statements recorded therein to applicants - violation of principles of
natural justice – Enquiry vitiated – Impugned order quashed”. Sugan Chand &
others v Govt. of NCT of Delhi & others 2005(3) A.T.J. CAT (P.B. New Delhi)
451.
Wednesday, January 26, 2022
Tuesday, January 25, 2022
Conduct & Disciplinary Rules – 100
CASE LAW ON PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE
9. The High Court of Karnataka in the case of GR
Venkateswara Reddy Vs KSRTC ( 1995 (I) LLJ 1020 ) – “the right to be heard, by following
a reasonable procedure in an enquiry necessarily envisages and invites the
following, subject to any special provision relating to procedure in the
relevant rules / regulations.
i. The
employee shall be informed of the exact charges which he is called upon to
meet.
ii.
He should be given an opportunity to
explain any material relied on by the management to prove the charges
iii.
The evidence of the management witnesses should be recorded in the presence of
delinquent employee and he should be given an opportunity to cross examine such
witness
iv.
The delinquent employee shall either be
furnished with copies of the documents relied on by the management or be
permitted to have adequate inspection of the documents relied on by the
disciplinary authority.
v.
The charged employee should be given
the opportunity to produce relevant evidence both documentary and oral which
include the right to examine self and other witnesses and to call for relevant
and material documents in the custody of employer.
vi.
When the enquiry authority is different from disciplinary authority, the
charged employee shall be furnished with a copy of the enquiry report and be
permitted to make a representation to the disciplinary authority against the
finding recorded in the enquiry report
However as observed by the High Court of Allahabad (1990 (I) LLJ 548) – “the opportunity of hearing on the principles of natural justice does not mean an opportunity to prove irrelevant facts”
10. The Delhi High Court (1992 (II) LLJ 579) had opined that – “if for example, principle of natural justice have been violated then it is open to the disciplinary authority to come to the conclusion that a DENOVO enquiry should be held”
11. The Madras High Court (1990 (II) LLJ 273) held – “non observance of principles of natural justice itself is prejudice to any man and proof of prejudice independently of proof of denial of natural justice is unnecessary”
12. In the words of Supreme Court in Tulsiram Patel case (
1985 (II) LLJ 245 ) – “ the principles of natural justice have thus come to be
recognized as being a part of the guarantee contained in Article 14 because of
the new and dynamic interpretation given by this court to the concept of
equality which is the subject matter of that article. Shortly put, the
syllogism run thus. Violation of a rule of natural justice results in
arbitrariness which is same as discrimination. Where discrimination is the
result of State action, it is violative of Article 14”
Monday, January 24, 2022
Sunday, January 23, 2022
Saturday, January 22, 2022
GDS Online Engagement process - in 5 states where model code of conduct for election is in force
Directorate Letter No. 17-23/2016-GDS dated 21.01.2022
AIPR module in SPARROW to be disabled by 31.01.2022- reminder for Group A Officers
DoP Letter No 20-01/2021-SPG dated 20.01.2022
Merchant Discount Rates for PLI/RPLI online transactions to be borne by customers
DoP Letter No. 56-02/2018-LI dated 18.01.2022
Friday, January 21, 2022
Thursday, January 20, 2022
Wednesday, January 19, 2022
Tuesday, January 18, 2022
Conduct & Disciplinary Rules – 99
CASE LAW ON PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE
1. According to Kerala High Court discipline in
establishment is to be preserved at all cost like “apple of an eye.”
If any employee commits misconduct, meaning an act or omission which goes against the smooth functioning of the establishment he requires to be punished. But before any punishment for misconduct is awarded, observance of principles of natural justice in the form of enquiry is a must.
2. The two principles of natural justice otherwise known as
principles of natural justice, equity and fair play are –
1.
AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM: Hear the other side
2.
NEMO JUDE IN CAUSASUA: No person shall be a judge in his own case (There should
not be bias – personal, pecuniary or any other)
3. One who hears must decide.
3. The main aim of observance of these principles of natural justice in disciplinary proceedings or domestic enquiries is to secure justice or to put it negatively to prevent miscarriage of justice. It is to give fair and impartial touch to the disciplinary proceedings.
4.The Supreme Court in the case of Firestone Tyre and Re-treading company Vs Workmen ( 1967 (II) LLJ 715 SC ) held – “ a domestic enquiry is a quasi-judicial proceeding and as such one of its essential requirement is that the rules of natural justice have to be observed in holding it”
5. In Director ECIL Vs B. Karunakaran (1994 (I) LLJ 162) the Supreme Court expressed as below – “the theory of reasonable opportunity and principles of natural justice have been evolved to uphold the rule of law and to assist individual to vindicate his just right.”
6. In MLL Kumar Vs the Divisional Manager APSRTC Cuddapah (1990 (II) LLJ 23) the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that – “the principles of natural justice is applicable to domestic proceedings have been held to include within them a right to the employee to have a fair trial”
7. The scope of rules of natural justice has been explained by the Supreme Court in Union of India Vs V.R. Varma (AIR LC 57 SC 882 ) as below – “ stating it broadly and without intending it to be exhaustive, it may be observed that the rules of natural justice requires that a party should have the opportunity of adducing all relevant evidence on which he relied, that the evidence of the opponent should be taken in his presence and that he should be given the opportunity of cross examining the witnesses examined by the party and that no materials should be relied on against him without his being given an opportunity of explaining them”
1. According to High Court of Patna (1993 (1) LLJ 1223) the right of being heard, though not a fundamental right, is a fundamental principle for judging fairness in action
Monday, January 17, 2022
Sunday, January 16, 2022
Saturday, January 15, 2022
Revised Commission/ incentive structure for "Distribution of Commission / Incentive pay out to DoP for handling IPPB work"
DoP OM No. 1-3/2017-PBI dated 14.01.2022
Friday, January 14, 2022
Wednesday, January 12, 2022
Admissibility of CTG on retirement
DoE OM No. 19030/1/2017-E.IV dated 06.01.2022
CTG admissible even on settlement upon retirement at the last station of duty (but involving change of residence)
Tuesday, January 11, 2022
Monday, January 10, 2022
Sunday, January 9, 2022
Saturday, January 8, 2022
Friday, January 7, 2022
Thursday, January 6, 2022
Wednesday, January 5, 2022
LGO DEST proposed to be held on 09.01.2022 postponed
CO, TN Letter No. REP/4-4/2021/CON(I) dated 05.01.2022
List of Qualified officials in Paper I & II in LGO & LGO (OW) Exam (PA Exam)
List of candidates qualified to appear for PAPER - III (DEST) of LGO Examination (Postman/MTS to PA) for the vacancies of the year 2021 can be viewed here.
List of candidates qualified to appear for PAPER - III (DEST) of LDCE for promotion of eligible officials working in C.O/R.O (including RLO)/Foreign Post to the cadre of PA/SA for the vacancies of the year 2021 can be viewed here.
Postponement of LDCE - Inspector Posts Exam
DoP Notification No. A-34012/03/2021-DE dated 05.01.2022
LDCE- IP Exam proposed to be held on 15.01.2022 & 16.01.2022 postponed
Postal Circle allocation of SSC candidates for appointment of PAs/SAs
Directorate has allotted Postal Circles to the candidates recommended by Staff Selection Commission through CHSLE 2018 for appointment to the cadre of Postal Assistants/ Sorting Assistant.
Click here to view file.
Tuesday, January 4, 2022
Modifications of instructions regarding booking of air tickets on Government account
MoF DoE OM No. 19024/03/2021-E-IV dated 31.12.2021
Engagement of Cost Consultants in Department of Posts
Postal Directorate has issued notification for engagement of Cost Consultants in Department of Posts, tariff and costing section. Dak Bhavan, New Delhi.
Complete notification can be viewed here
Monday, January 3, 2022
Draft Recruitment Rules for Lower Division Clerk in PAOs
DoP Letter No.251(01)/2014/PA Admn II/2739-2776 dated 31.12.2021
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
View training class on PO Guide Part I in English here : 01 - Postal Organisational Setup - Kiruthika - YouTube View Exam Corner Loadin...
-
http://dlvr.it/SpWx4Z
-
View coaching class on PO Savings Bank (Part-1) in Tamil here : Financial Services - National Savings Scheme - Kiruthika- YouTube View Exam...
