Begin typing your search above and press return to search.
Top Stories

Disciplinary Proceedings Are Not Quasi Criminal In Nature, Says SC [Read Judgment]

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
21 Dec 2019 9:40 AM GMT
Disciplinary Proceedings Are Not Quasi Criminal In Nature, Says SC [Read Judgment]
x

The Supreme Court has observed that disciplinary proceedings are not quasi criminal in nature. The bench of Justice Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and Justice Hrishikesh Roy was considering an appeal against High Court judgment which set aside the findings of the disciplinary inquiry holding that the nature of a disciplinary inquiry is quasi criminal. In Uttarakhand Transport Corporation...

The Supreme Court has observed that disciplinary proceedings are not quasi criminal in nature.

The bench of Justice Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and Justice Hrishikesh Roy was considering an appeal against High Court judgment which set aside the findings of the disciplinary inquiry holding that the nature of a disciplinary inquiry is quasi criminal.

In Uttarakhand Transport Corporation Heera Singh Parihar , the bench said:

"Disciplinary proceedings are not quasi criminal in nature. A disciplinary inquiry is conducted by the employer to inquire into a charge or misconduct pertaining to a breach of the rules and regulations governing the service of the employer. The standard of proof is not that governed by a criminal trial. In exercising judicial review the test is whether the findings are based on some evidence. The High Court may interfere with only in a case where there is no evidence to sustain the charge of misconduct. "

The charge against Heera Singh was that he abused and assaulted a colleague driver. The Disciplinary authority, imposed a penalty of the stoppage of eight increment on him. The High Court quashed the disciplinary proceedings findings on the ground that the colleague who was alleged to have been abused and assaulted by the complaint changed his version.

Setting aside the judgment of the High Court, the Apex Court said there was evidence of the Assistant Regional Manager and the Station in-charge, both of whom were present on the spot and gave accounts of what had transpired, and therefore the charge of misconduct stood proved.

Click here to Read/Download Judgment

[Read Judgment]


Next Story