Allowed

Y.G.Mohanachandran v. UOI & Anr.

Delhi HC4 Jan 2017W.P.(C)/4270/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court quashed penalty orders for lack of natural justice as CVC report and vital evidence were not shared with the officer, and noted findings lacked evidentiary basis.

What did the court decide?

Orders of disciplinary authority and Tribunal quashed; increment withheld to be released without interest.

What the court decided

AI extract

Y.G.Mohanachandran Vs UOI & Anr. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2017)

¶56

committed an error in coming to conclusion that principle of natural justice was violated. Learned Additional Solicitor General urged that the principle of natural justice having been incorporated and the same having been observed the Court was not justified in misinterpreting the rule. The learned counsel urged that the Bank was very fair to the respondent and the disciplinary authority after application of mind and careful analysis of the material on record on its own evaluation, uninfluenced by the CVC recommendation passed the order. It was emphasised that if the exercise would have been mechanical the disciplinary authority would not have disagreed with CVC recommendations on punishment. Learned counsel submitted that, in any case, the disciplinary authority having passed detailed order discussing every material on record and the respondent having filed appeal there was no prejudice caused to him. None of these submissions are of any help. The order is vitiated not because of mechanical exercise of powers or for nonsupply of the inquiry report but for relying and acting on material which was not only irrelevant but could not have been looked into. Purpose of supplying document is to contest its veracity or give explanation. Effect of non-supply of the report of Inquiry Officer before imposition of punishment need not be gone into nor it is necessary to consider validity of sub-rule (5). But non-supply of CVC recommendation which was prepared behind the back of respondent without his participation, and one does not know on what material which was not only sent to the disciplinary authority but was examined and relied on, was certainly violative of procedural safeguard and contrary to fair and just inquiry. From the letter produced by the respondent, the authenticity of which has been verified by the learned Additional Solicitor General, it appears the Bank turned down the request of the respondent for a copy of CVC recommendation as “The correspondence with the Central Vigilance Commission is a privileged communication and cannot be forwarded as the order passed by the appointing authority deals with the recommendation of the CVC which is considered sufficient”. Taking action against an employee on confidential document which is the foundation of order exhibits complete misapprehension about the procedure that is required to be followed by the disciplinary authority. May be that the

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A compact analysis