1000 TIT BITS ON DISCIPLINE -176
756. Issue of fresh charge sheet again for the joint enquiry already conducted
Joint Inquiry held. One removed and one compulsorily retired. Compulsorily retired person approached court and got reinstatement. On representation, removed person was also reinstated. Again fresh charge sheet issued. Held invalid.
Sajeb K.Sen X Director, Admn. GOI 78 CWN 841.
757. Communication of order through registered post is quite reasonable and sufficient
In departmental inquiries an attempt to service communications through registered post A.D. is more than reasonable and if the servant chooses to refuse service, the risk is his and he must pay for the consequences. In such cases, therefore, the service of letters etc. shall be complete even if he refuses to receive the communication, sent by registered post.
[Jagdish Sekhri v. Union of India, 1970 SLR (Delhi) 571]
758. Refusal to accept a regd. envelope amounts to delivery
There is due process when a regd. envelope is offered to the addressee but he refuses to accept it. Section 27 of the General Clauses Act and Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act raise this presumption. Further, by the presumption the addressee will be imputed with the knowledge of the contents thereof.
[Harcharan Singh v. Shiv Rani, (1981)2 SCR 962: AIR 1981 SC 1284]
759. Not an empty formality, but serious proceedings
“The departmental inquiry is not an empty formality; it is a serious proceeding intended to give the officer concerned a chance to meet the charge and prove his innocence.”
[Jagdish Prasad Saxena v. State of M.P., AIR 1961 SC 1070]
760. It is a misconduct to refuse to accept a charge sheet
(1) An employee refused to receive an order on the ground that it was in English language which he could not read, though the order was explained to him. Refusal was held to be a misconduct.
[Tractor (India) Ltd. v. Mohd. Sayeed, AIR 1959 SC 1196: (1959)2 LLJ 224]
(2) An employee refused to answer the charge sheet on the ground that he was an officer bearer of the union. The Supreme Court held that it was the duty of the employee to answer all queries addressed to him by his employer. The refusal to answer the charge sheet, on any ground, amounted to misconduct. There could not be a split personality and he was first and foremost an employee.
[Laxmi Devi Sugar Mills v. Nand Kishore, 1956 SCR 746: AIR 1957 SC 7]
Post a Comment