Pension is in Danger????

207. Inquiry is vitiated if proper procedure is not followed

(vii) every opportunity is afforded to the charged employee for participating in the inquiry. The inquiry officer does not proceed ex-parte in an unjustified or unreasonable manner (Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines, 1999(2) SCALE 363];

(viii) where inquiry is held by an officer other than the disciplinary authority and his report contains material adverse to the charged employee, a copy thereof is supplied to the charged employee and his observations thereon, if any, obtained so that the report is considered along with his observations [Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar, AIR 1994 SC 1074);

(ix) final decision is taken by disciplinary authority on an objective consideration of the material on record and not mechanically or on direction or advice of someone else [Nagraj Karjagi v. Syndicate Bank, AIR 1991 SC 1407);

(x) if the disciplinary authority proposes to disagree with the report of inquiry to the detriment of the charged employee an opportunity is afforded to him to make his submissions relating thereto (Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Behari Misra, AIR 1998 SC 2721];

(xi) the action, on the face of it, is not so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could have taken it (Sree Rama Rao case, supra; Parmananda v. State of Haryana, AIR 1989 SC 1185).

It would, thus follow that in a case where the above said conditions are satisfied, the proceedings would perfectly be in order and the decision based thereon would be free from any legal hole-pricking, on a future date.