Whether disciplinary proceedings are maintainable in cases where the charge-sheet was issued before the superannuation of the employee but was served on the employee after his retirement?
From India, New Delhi
418From India, New Delhi
Disciplinary proceedings are maintainable where the charge sheet is issued (may or may not be served) provided the superannuation/relieving order states so. But once an employee is retired from service, there are only very few punishments possible. The issue as to whether an employee can be terminated from service with retrospective effect was pending before the Supreme Court some time back, whether the theory of 'Relation back' has been upheld or rejected is not known to me. But there are several instances where retired employees have been imposed punishment of reduction in the grade by two or more stages.
In certain Service Rules, the retired employee in Government service can be retained in service till the disciplinary action is over for that limited purpose and the employee is entitled to his last pay.
From India, Mumbai
In certain Service Rules, the retired employee in Government service can be retained in service till the disciplinary action is over for that limited purpose and the employee is entitled to his last pay.
From India, Mumbai
Dear Team HR
The following reply observed in a labour related website.
In the matter of Shri Ramesh Chandra Verma v. State of Himachal Pradesh, [CWPOA No.411 of 2019 decided on September 17, 2020], the Himachal Pradesh High Court, while relying on the Supreme Court's decision in the matter of Union of India v. Dinanath Shantaram Karekar, [AIR 1998 SC 2722], held that, where the disciplinary proceedings are intended to be initiated by issuing a charge-sheet, its actual service to the employee is essential to initiate the disciplinary proceedings. The theory of 'communication' cannot be invoked, and actual service is required to be proved and established. Therefore, the disciplinary proceedings which was continued against the employee, even after his superannuation, on the basis of charge-sheet, which was never served upon him till his superannuation, was held, non-est in the eyes of law and the order on the basis of such disciplinary proceedings by the disciplinary authority, was held to be, void ab-initio.
From India, New Delhi
The following reply observed in a labour related website.
In the matter of Shri Ramesh Chandra Verma v. State of Himachal Pradesh, [CWPOA No.411 of 2019 decided on September 17, 2020], the Himachal Pradesh High Court, while relying on the Supreme Court's decision in the matter of Union of India v. Dinanath Shantaram Karekar, [AIR 1998 SC 2722], held that, where the disciplinary proceedings are intended to be initiated by issuing a charge-sheet, its actual service to the employee is essential to initiate the disciplinary proceedings. The theory of 'communication' cannot be invoked, and actual service is required to be proved and established. Therefore, the disciplinary proceedings which was continued against the employee, even after his superannuation, on the basis of charge-sheet, which was never served upon him till his superannuation, was held, non-est in the eyes of law and the order on the basis of such disciplinary proceedings by the disciplinary authority, was held to be, void ab-initio.
From India, New Delhi
Yes, the disciplinary proceedings are maintainable in cases where the charge-sheet was issued before the superannuation of the employee.
The disciplinary proceedings are not maintainable in cases where the charge-sheet was issued after his retirement.
From India, Mumbai
The disciplinary proceedings are not maintainable in cases where the charge-sheet was issued after his retirement.
From India, Mumbai
The Judgement in Ramesh Chandra Verma v. State of Himachal Pradesh was gone through. The Single Bench Himachal Pradesh High Court (J. Ajay Mohan Goel) has allowed the petition and rejected the disciplinary action since the charge sheet though issued before retirement was served six months after retirement, required permission of the Governor was not taken, etc. In Union Of India & Ors vs Dinanath Shataram Karekar & Ors decided on 30 July 1998 by Supreme Court it was held that the Charge sheet and the show cause notice were never served on the employee as per the Rules and so the entire disciplinary proceeding is vitiated.
,
From India, Mumbai
,
From India, Mumbai
Find answers from people who have previously dealt with business and work issues similar to yours - Please Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query.
Check LisCheck List ofr Disciplinary Proceedings Domestic Enquiry 11 Sep 09.doc