disciplinary proceedings - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court Upholds Teacher’s Dismissal Over Fake Transfer Order – Natural Justice Principles Explained

4Jun

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Upholds Teacher’s Dismissal Over Fake Transfer Order – Natural Justice Principles Explained

The Supreme Court held that natural justice violations must cause actual prejudice to invalidate disciplinary proceedings. Technical non-compliance with procedural rules doesn't automatically vitiate departmental action. Courts assess whether different outcomes would emerge if procedures were followed. Preponderance of probability standard applies in disciplinary cases, not criminal proof standards. Facts Of The Case: S. Janaki Iyer was appointed as a Hindi trained graduate teacher at Kendriya Vidyalaya Sanghathan, Bangalore on probation from January 11, 1989, and became permanent from April 16, 1992. Since her husband worked in Mumbai, she sought transfer from Bangalore to Mumbai or Pune. A transfer order dated October 1, 1991, allegedly signed by VK Jain, Assistant Commissioner (Headqu...

Supreme Court Quashes Bank’s Charge Sheet: Failure to Seek CVC Advice Ruled Illegal

The Supreme Court ruled that Regulation 19 of the Union Bank of India Officers’ (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976 mandates mandatory consultation with the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) before issuing a charge sheet in disciplinary cases involving a vigilance angle. The Bank’s failure to await the CVC’s first-stage advice rendered the proceedings arbitrary and illegal, warranting quashing of the charge sheet. The Court clarified that once the Bank acknowledges a vigilance angle and seeks CVC input, it cannot unilaterally proceed without considering the advice, upholding procedural fairness in disciplinary actions. No back wages were granted, but retiral benefits were ordered to be released. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, A.M. Kulshrestha, a Deputy General Manager at Unio...

SC Upholds Right to Fair Consideration: Police Constable Denied Promotion Due to Expunged Punishment

The Supreme Court held that the appellant, a Police Constable, was unjustly denied promotion consideration due to a previously set-aside punishment. The Court emphasized the right to be considered for promotion unless disqualified, ruling that the appellant must be evaluated for promotion from 2019 with consequential benefits, as the disqualification was based on an invalidated penalty. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, P. Sakthi, was a Police Constable in Tamil Nadu who joined service on 01.03.2002. In 2019, he became eligible for promotion to the post of Sub Inspector under the 20% departmental quota. However, his application was rejected by the Superintendent of Police on the grounds of a past disciplinary action—a punishment of postponement of increment for one year without cumulativ...