Dispensation of regular enquiry

Allegation against all three accused persons was of inefficiency and misconduct for failing to abide by the departmental rules on storage of scrap stock

Major penalty of reduction in pay to one lower stage in time scale had been imposed on the appellant without an opportunity to demonstrate that the responsibility for the alleged inefficiency was shared and he should not be singled out

Enhancement of penalty to dismissal from service attributed malice and concealment of pilferage to the appellant, which were altogether new charges regarding which a regular inquiry was necessary and could not be dispensed with

Failure by the appellant to object against the dispensation of regular enquiry could not bestow legality/validity upon an administrative action that was deficient in meeting the legal standards of fairness and propriety in disciplinary proceedings

Appellant was apparently punished for misappropriating property of department but without charging him with the same or confronting him with the adverse material sustaining the allegation

Supreme Court observed that it would be lawful, appropriate and fair that a regular enquiry was conducted to the extent of responsibility of the appellant for his alleged misconduct, and if culpable, the lawful penalty that may be imposed on him

Supreme Court set aside the major penalty of dismissal from service imposed on the appellant and remanded his case to the department for holding regular enquiry after giving him full opportunity of representation in accordance with law.

Allegation against all three accused persons was of inefficiency and misconduct for failing to abide by the departmental rules on storage of scrap stock

Major penalty of reduction in pay to one lower stage in time scale had been imposed on the appellant without an opportunity to demonstrate that the responsibility for the alleged inefficiency was shared and he should not be singled out

Enhancement of penalty to dismissal from service attributed malice and concealment of pilferage to the appellant, which were altogether new charges regarding which a regular inquiry was necessary and could not be dispensed with

Failure by the appellant to object against the dispensation of regular enquiry could not bestow legality/validity upon an administrative action that was deficient in meeting the legal standards of fairness and propriety in disciplinary proceedings

Appellant was apparently punished for misappropriating property of department but without charging him with the same or confronting him with the adverse material sustaining the allegation

Supreme Court observed that it would be lawful, appropriate and fair that a regular enquiry was conducted to the extent of responsibility of the appellant for his alleged misconduct, and if culpable, the lawful penalty that may be imposed on him

Supreme Court set aside the major penalty of dismissal from service imposed on the appellant and remanded his case to the department for holding regular enquiry after giving him full opportunity of representation in accordance with law.