HC quashes inquiry report against sacked employee | india | Hindustan Times
  • Tuesday, Jun 19, 2018
  •   °C  
Today in New Delhi, India
Jun 19, 2018-Tuesday
-°C
New Delhi
  • Humidity
    -
  • Wind
    -

HC quashes inquiry report against sacked employee

THE ALLAHABAD High Court has ruled that while holding disciplinary inquiry against a delinquent employee, the rules of natural justice must be observed which requires that the party should have the opportunity of adducing all relevant evidence on which he relied upon and the evidence of the opponent should be taken in presence of the employee.

india Updated: Mar 23, 2006 00:07 IST

THE ALLAHABAD High Court has ruled that while holding disciplinary inquiry against a delinquent employee, the rules of natural justice must be observed which requires that the party should have the opportunity of adducing all relevant evidence on which he relied upon and the evidence of the opponent should be taken in presence of the employee. Further, the employee should be given opportunity to cross- examine the witnesses examined by that party and adduce his own defence evidence and no material should be relied upon against the employee without being given opportunity of explaining them.

This was ruled by a Division Bench consisting of Justice VM Sahai and Justice Sabhajeet Yadav on a writ petition filed by Shiv Shankar Saxena, an Incharge District Panchayat Raj Officer, who was removed from service on some charges some time back.

The court, allowing the writ petition, quashed the inquiry report saying that disciplinary inquiry was quasi-judicial in nature and therefore, strict rules of evidence were not applied but disciplinary authority or inquiry officer could obtain all information, material on the points under inquiry from all sources and through all channels, without being fettered by rules and procedure which governed the proceedings in court.

The only obligation which the law cast on them was that they should not act on any information which they may receive unless they put it to the party against whom it was be used and give him a fair opportunity to explain, observed the judges.