SUBMITTED FOR PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE COURSE ERIRLH1512 The Law and case laws on disciplinary procedure (Field study, interviews with HR/IR Managers/trade Union Leaders) Submitted by: Manas Tiwari H15150 Manish Kumar Tiwary H15151 Md. Sheeraz Ahmed H15152 Neeraj Singh Chauhan H15155 Prathamesh Dashpute H15160 Rakesh Roshan H15164 Shilpa H15172
20
Embed
Section C_Group 9_The Law and case laws on disciplinary procedure.pdf
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
SUBMITTED FOR PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE COURSE ERIRLH1512
The Law and case laws on disciplinary
procedure (Field study, interviews with HR/IR Managers/trade Union Leaders)
Disciplinary procedures play a very important part in the management of events that take place in an
industry, organization or the country in general. In this project of ours we have tried to focus our
attention on the basis of these disciplinary actions from a legal point of view vis-à-vis focussing on their
application by courts and tribunals. We have also tried to cite various case laws in order to develop a
better understanding of these laws.
With the proliferation of labour laws in our country, it is very important to have a clear understand of
these laws in order to take action within the realms of principle of natural justice. Thus, it is very
important to correctly interpret these laws or have a good knowledge of how the courts interpret the law
before any action is taken. If a clear enunciation of the laws isn’t present then there are bound to be
serious consequences making it all the more important to have a clear understanding of these laws. We
have tried to offer the pertinent and case laws in a way that it offers a proper understanding and a very
objective view on the subject.
In order to further enhance our understanding of the practical understanding of the laws, we have also
garnered and furnished information regarding the existence, application and evolution of disciplinary
procedures in organizations. For this purpose we have chosen TATA MOTORS MANUFACTURING
DIVISION, JAMSHEDPUR as our model organization. We interacted with different officials there who
handle such issues and gained a fair idea of how they handle disciplinary cases in their organization.
Not only that, we also gained a fair amount of knowledge of how they evolve their disciplinary
procedures in accordance to the changes that occur in their standing orders. A fair amount of practical
examples were also cited in order to gain a better understanding.
The importance of keeping disciplinary procedures in accordance with the laws is of primary
importance. The employees also have a right to be informed of the procedures and it must be ensured
that processes are followed properly in every case. Disciplinary actions should go hand in hand with
labour laws and thus, it is important that various facets of these laws are taken into account which we
aim to do in our project.
4 | P a g e
LAWS CONCERNING DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURES
DISCIPLINARY LAWS UNDER INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYMENT (STANDING ORDERS) ACT, 1946
Section 3. Submission of draft standing orders
(2) Provision shall be made in such draft for every matter set out in the Schedule which may
be applicable to the industrial establishment, and where Model standing orders have been
prescribed shall be, so far as is practicable, in conformity with such model.
Schedule 9
9. Suspension or dismissal for misconduct, and acts or omissions which constitute
misconduct.
LAWS AND PROCEDURES: SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN THE WORKPLACE
Vishaka Guidelines against Sexual Harassment in the Workplace laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court
3. (b) The Rules/Regulations of Government and Public Sector bodies relating to conduct and
discipline should include rules/regulations prohibiting sexual harassment and provide for
appropriate penalties in such rules against the offender.
3. (c) As regards private employers, steps should be taken to include the aforesaid
prohibitions in the standing orders under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act,
1946.
5. Disciplinary Action
Disciplinary Action Where such conduct amounts to misconduct in employment as defined
by the relevant service rules, appropriate disciplinary action should be initiated by the
employer in accordance with those rules.
Case Law: Vishaka and Others vs. State of Rajasthan and Others (JT 1997 (7) SC 384)
5 | P a g e
DISCIPLINARY LAWS, TRADE UNION ACT,1947
Section 31
Failure to submit returns.
Section 32
Supplying false information regarding trade unions
DISCIPLINARY LAWS, FACTORIES ACT, 1948
Section 97
Offences by workers
DISCIPLINARY LAWS UNDER ID ACT, 1947:
Section 25T:
Prohibition of unfair labour practice.
Section 25U:
Penalty for committing unfair labour practices.
PENALTIES
Section 26.
Penalty for illegal strikes and lock-outs:-
Section 27.
Penalty for instigation
Section 28.
Penalty for giving financial aid to illegal strikes and lock-outs
Section 29.
Penalty for breach of settlement or award.
Section 30.
Penalty for disclosing confidential information
6 | P a g e
CASE LAWS CONCERNING DISCIPLINARY
PROCEDURES
1. S. Venkatesan vs. Union of India, 1999(2) SLJ CAT MAD 492 This case is about whether disciplinary actions by a quasi-judicial body can be challenged. This law
is very important as it ensures tabs are kept on boards of quasi-judicial and disciplinary bodies to
ensure no misconduct on their part.
Case Details: Mr. Venkatesan (the applicant) was the Assistant Engineer working with Open Line
Organisation at the time of derailment of the wheels of Trivandrum Madras Mail in the year 1995.
Following an enquiry by the disciplinary committee, Mr Ventakesan was charged with taking
appropriate action against Mr Ramamurthy who served as the Inspector for tracks in the region.
Following procedures, Mr Venkatesan asked Mr Ramamurthy for his reply. After receiving and
considering his reply Mr Venkatesan handed out a very lenient punishment to Mr Ramamurthy
withholding his annual increment for a period of six months. When the General Manager of
Southern Railways heard about this punishment he issued a charge memo against Mr Venkatesan
citing his negligent handling of the case and for not awarding proper punishment to the guilty.
Further enquiry was ordered against Mr Venkatesan. However, Mr Venkatesan went ahead and
challenged contending that the powers that he had exercised in punishing the delinquent officer was
quasijudicial in nature and no proceeding can be taken for exercising quasi-judicial power. Hence
he wanted the memo quashed and the charges to be taken back.
Verdict : The tribunal agreed that a charge sheet can be filed against can be filed against a
disciplinary authority, even if it’s a quasi-judicial body, if it is established that proper proceedings
were not followed and the disciplinary body was negligent. The tribunal cited 2 verdicts given by
the Supreme Court, S. Govinda Menon vs. Union of India, AIR 1967 and Union of India vs. K.K.
Dhawan, 1993 where the courts had permitted proceedings against quasi-judicial bodies. Hence the
appeal of Mr Venkatesan was rejected.
7 | P a g e
2. Bhagwan Singh vs. Deputy Commissioner Sitapur, AIR 1962 All 232: 1962 (1) CrLJ
554
Disciplinary Proceedings versus Criminal Prosecution
Case Details: Bhagwan Singh was working as a clerk in the Collectorate, Sitapur. He was
suspected of gross negligence and delinquency of his duty. His management initiated a
departmental enquiry and proceedings against him. A criminal prosecution was also launched
against him against him in the Court of law along with the departmental proceedings under
Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. It was questioned by the Learned Counsel for the
applicant that some of the acts, which were the subject matter in the departmental enquiry, were
also taken into consideration in the criminal case as well. Therefore, the petitioner filed a writ
petition for the issue of a writ of mandamus asking the departmental proceedings in-charge and
the Court of law to not:
1) To hold the Departmental enquiry against him or
2) To require him to submit an explanation
3) To give any statement in the Departmental enquiry until the criminal case
against him terminated.
Verdict: There is no provision in the law that empowers the Court of law to stay departmental
proceedings just because the criminal prosecution of the same individual is going on in the
Court of law. The court also stated that the object of the two proceedings is also completely
different. The object of Departmental proceedings is to find out if the person should remain in
their employment or not. And the object of the criminal prosecution was to ascertain if any of
his actions were defined as offence as per the India Penal Code or not. The court also made it
clear that Article 20 (3) of the Indian constitution also did not apply to the departmental
enquiries because in the departmental proceedings a person is not tried for a criminal offense.
It is possible that he will be found of negligence and misconduct, which are not criminal offense
as such. In addition, during the departmental proceedings, there was no evidence that any steps
have been where the petitioner was asked to be witness against himself and to product any such
documents under his custody.
8 | P a g e
3. A.K. Kraipak & Ors. Etc vs Union Of India on 29 April, 1969 2 SCC 262; AIR 1970
SC 150
Natural Justice in Disciplinary Proceedings
Case Details: The petitioner A.K. Kraipak and Ors. Etc were gazetted officers serving in the
forest department of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. They were serving in variety of positions
such as Conservators of Forest, Divisional Forest Officers, and Assistant Conservators of
Forests. All the petitioners were aggrieved by the criteria, which was used for selection of the
officers serving in the Forest Department of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to the Indian
Forest Service, a service that came into existence in 1966 under Section 3(1) of the All India
Services Act, 1951 and rules framed under the Act. They moved their petition in the court to
ask for repeal of the notification No. 3/24/66-A-15(IV) issued by the Government of India on
the grounds that the selection in the notification discussed was in violation of the Article 14
and Article 16 of the Constitution and that selections were in violation of the principles of the
natural justice. They also challenged the power of the Section 3 of All India Services Act, Rule
4 that was framed as per the Act and Regulation 5 of Indian Forest Service Regulation for the
purpose of initial recruitment, which was framed under the Rule 4. Section 3 provides that after
consulting the Government of the States including Government of Jammu and Kashmir the
Central Government will make rules for the regulation of recruitment and service’s condition
of the persons who are appointed in All India Services. Constitution of Special Selection Board
was provided by Regulation 3 of Indian Forest Service (Initial Recruitment) Regulations, 1956
framed under Rule 4(1) of the Indian Forest Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1966. The Regulation
5 governed preparation of the list of potential candidates. The head of the selection board was
Chief Conservator of the Forest of the State and final selection was to be done by the U.P.S.C.
The petitioners contended that one of the candidate, Naquishbund’s was appointed as Chief
Conservator of Forest with no regards to seniority in the department. The petitioners filed
petitions to the higher authorities against their supersession. While their petition were still in
process, the same candidate was appointed as ex-officio Chairman of the selection board
constituted to recommend list of candidates for the selection in the All India Forest Service.
The names of the petitioner were not there in the list of potential candidates whereas
Naquishbund’s name was there at the top of the list. Naquishbund was involved in the selection
board at the time when the case of petitioners was being evaluated for selection in the list of
potential candidates and when the order was preference was decided by the selection board.
Aggrieved The Gazetted Officers Association and the interested parties therefore moved a
9 | P a g e
petition against the selection notified as violative of the Article 14 and Article 16 of Indian
Constitution and the selection were also against the principle of Natural Justice that before
taking any decision the other side must be heard and that No man shall be a judge in his own
cause.
Verdict: The five-judge bench of the Supreme Court held that selection based on the
recommended list by the selection board was in violation of the natural justice. Even though
the selection board was conferred with only administrative powers and not quasi-judicial but
there is still an common element between the two- which is the duty to act fairly and to make
secure justice and prevent miscarriage of justice. The court also observed that Naquishbund
has personal interest in keeping the petitioners (his rivals) out of the recommended list and that
he was not impartial, fair and just .The court also held that both principles of natural justice
was flouted. Based on this rationale the court struck down the selections made from the list
recommended by the selection board.
10 | P a g e
4. State Of Andhra Pradesh vs S. Sree Rama Rao on 10 April, 1963
The respondent was a Sub-Inspector of Police in charge 01 a police station. One Mr. D,
suspected of having committed an offence, was apprehended by the village Munsif and was
sent to the police station. He was handed over to the respondent. The respondent declined to
give a written acknowledgment of having received 1) and made no entries in the station diary
regarding him. D was confined in the police station for several days without being produced
before a Magistrate. A departmental inquiry was started against him for reprehensible conduct
in wrongfully confining D. The defence set up by him was that D had never been handed over
to him because he had escaped while on his way to the police station. The Deputy
Superintendent of Police, who held the enquiry, found him guilty of the charge. The Deputy
Inspector-General of Police gave him a show-cause notice and after considering his explanation
ordered that he be dismissed from service. On appeal, the Inspector-General of Police modified
the order of dismissal and converted it into one for removal from service. The respondent filed
a writ petition before the High Court challenging the validity of the order and the High Court
quashed the orders. The High Court had no jurisdiction to interfere with the orders. The High
Court was wrong in its view that in a departmental enquiry the rule followed in a criminal trial
that an offence is not established unless proved by evidence beyond reasonable doubt to the
satisfaction of the court must be applied and that if such a rule was not applied the high court
could set aside the order of the departmental authority in exercise of its power .under Art. 226
of the constitution. The High Court does not sit as a court of appeal over the decision of the
authority holding a departmental enquiry: it has only to see whether the enquiry has been held
by a competent authority and according to the procedure prescribed and whether the rules of
natural justice have been observed. Where there is some evidence which the authority has
accepted and which evidence may reasonably support the conclusion that the officer is guilty,
it is not the function of the High Court exercising its jurisdiction under Art.226 to review the
evidence and to arrive at an independent finding on the evidence. If the enquiry has been
properly held the question of adequacy or reliability of the evidence cannot be canvassed before
the High Court. In the present case, the proceedings before the departmental authorities were
regular, no rules of natural justice were violated, the conclusions were borne out by the
evidence and the respondent had ample opportunity of examining his witnesses. Therefore, the
conclusions of the punishing authority were not open to be questioned before the High Court.
11 | P a g e
5. Anil Kumar & Ors vs M.K Aiyappa & Anr on 1 October, 2013
The Case is about whether a Special Judge/Magistrate is justified in referring a private
complaint made under Section 200 Cr.P.C. for investigation by the Deputy Superintendent of
Police – Karnataka Lokayukta, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
without the production of a valid sanction order under Section 19 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988.
The Appellants herein filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. before the
Additional City Civil and Special Judge for Prevention of Corruption on 9.10.2012. The
complaint of the Appellants was that the first respondent with mala fide intention passed an
order dated 30.6.2012 in connivance with other officers and restored valuable land in favor of
a private person. On a complaint being raised, the first respondent vide order dated 6.10.2012
recalled the earlier order. Alleging that the offence which led to issuance of the order dated