Enquiry - how to be conduct, date, time, place, evidence, cross-examination

Citation / Name of        Parties	Relevant Paragraph	Legal Proposition
(2009) 2 SCC 570, Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank (Supreme Court)	Paras 14, 15, 17, 23	Each of the charges need to be independently and separately proved by witnesses, and alleged admission by the delinquent does not absolve the officer from proving charges.
(2006) 5 SCC 88 (MV Bijlani v. Union of India) Supreme Court	Paras 18, 29, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28	Order based on improper enquiry report which is vitiated due to not following principles of natural justice is not sustainable.
(1995) 6 SCC 749 (BC Chaturvedi v. Union of  India) (Supreme Court)	Paras 12, 18 and 25	Under power of judicial review, the court is bound to examine whether principles of natural justice including the basic rules of evidence are followed, and whether the punishment imposed is disproportionate.
(1987) 4 SCC 611 (Ranjit Thakur v. Union of Indian) (Supreme Court)	Paras 25, 27, 28	Disproportionate punishment imposed by the authority liable to be interfered with by the court.
AIR 1983 SC 454 (Bhagat Ram v. State of Himachal  Pradesh) (Supreme Court)	Paras 10 and 15	Disproportionate penalty is liable to be set aside as demanded by fair play and justice, and it is within the domain of the court to provide for a minor penalty.
(2005) 1 UPLBEC 276  ( Atul Kumar v. Up Export Corporation)	Paras 11, 12, 13	Order of dismissal based on enquiry where witnesses were not examined and there were other serious breaches, the dismissal order is liable to be set aside and reinstatement with back wages
2004 1 AWC  384 (All) Raj Kishore Yadav v. UP Public Service Tribunal)	Paras 14 & 15	No pecuniary gain alleged or shown and proved by the enquiry officer, and no reasons given for awarding major punishment. Punishment order was held to        be not sustainable.
2004 (22) LCD 770 (All) Ambika Prasad Srivastava v. State Public Services Tribunal Lucknow	Paras 8 & 10	Enquiry report based on simply the reply submitted by the Petitioner, and the petitioner was not informed about the date, time and place of holding enquiry, and as such the inquiry report is vitiated If the case has been pending for a long time, it is not proper to remit for fresh inquiry.
2004 (22) LCD 1 (All) (Avadesh Kumar v. State of UP)	Paras 5 & 6	Where inquiry is held without intimating date, time and place of inquiry, the same is liable to be set aside.
2003 (21) LCD 610 (All) (LB) Radhey Kant Khare v. UP Cooperative Sugar Factories	Paras 7 to 15, 20, 21, 23, 24, 27	After a charge sheet is given to the employee an oral enquiry is a must whether the employee requests or not, and date, time, place of inquiry must be fixed. The delinquent must be allowed to cross examine those persons whose testimony        is relied against him.
2002 (20) LCD 610 (All) (Sri PC Chaturvedi v. UP State Textile Corporation)	Paragraph 40	Due to non-payment of subsistence allowance, the Enquiry, the punishment of dismissal or the petitioner and dismissal of his appeal, are all void.
2001 (19) LCD 60 (All) (LB) (Dr. Arun Kumar v. State of UP)	Paras 9, 11, 12	Enquiry officer cannot rely on evidence which was prepared/written by him.
1999 (17) LCD 419 (Dr. Anmesh Kumar & Others v. Director, Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Izatnagar, Bareilly & ors)	Paragraph  32	An order for which reasons have not been given is liable to be set aside.
2011 (5) ESC 3643 (All) Kishori Lal v. Chairman Board of Directors, Aligarh, Gramin Bank, Aligarh)	paras 17-20, 27, 29. Paras 33, 39, 49, 50, 51 Paras 56, 58, 62, 63 Paragraph 11	A vague averment in the counter affidavit that petitioner was given full opportunity to defend is not sufficient, and particulars ought to be provided that how principles of natural justice have been complied with. Lack of good behavior does not itself constitute 'misconduct' and in the facts accepting money from neighbours  but causing no loss to the bank held is not misconduct, for which disproportionate punishment should not be imposed. When no loss is caused to the bank, and for a petty amount, disproportionate punishment cannot be imposed. Plea of alternative remedy cannot be taken at such belated stage, when pleadings have been exchanged and the matter has been pending for years.
2012 (1) ADJ 183 (DB), Allahabad High Court (BM Nigam v. Chairman, State Bank of India)	Paras 68, 69	When charges are not proved  the inquiry report does not stand and is liable to be quashed. No loss is caused to the bank and misappropriation has not been proved, no disproportionate punishment can be imposed.
(1991) 1 SCC Union of India v. Ramzan Khan	Paragraph 18	A copy of the enquiry report has to be provided to the delinquent, and a failure to do so vitiates the disciplinary proceedings.

   

Come to court with clean hands - disclosures in a case

This Court and different High Courts have repeatedly invoked and applied the rule that a person who does not disclose all material facts has no right to be heard on the merits of his grievance - State of Haryana v. Karnal Distillery Co. Ltd. MANU/SC/0022/1976 : (1977) 2 SCC 431, Vijay Kumar Kathuria v. State of Haryana MANU/SC/0054/1983 : (1983) 3 SCC 333, Welcome Hotel and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. etc.MANU/SC/0029/1983 : (1983) 4 SCC 575, G. Narayanaswamy Reddy (dead) by LRs. and Anr. v. Government of Karnataka and Anr. MANU/SC/0386/1991 : (1991) 3 SCC 261,S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs. v. Jagannath (dead) by LRs. and Ors.MANU/SC/0192/1994 : (1994) 1 SCC 1, Agricultural and Processed Food Products v. Oswal Agro Furane and Ors. MANU/SC/1150/1996 : (1996) 4 SCC 297, Union of India and Ors. v. Muneesh Suneja (2001) 3 SCC 92, Prestige Lights Ltd. v. State Bank of India MANU/SC/3355/2007 : (2007) 8 SCC 449, Sunil Poddar and Ors. v. Union Bank of India MANU/SC/0322/2008 : (2008) 2 SCC 326, K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Ors. MANU/SC/3371/2008 : (2008) 12 SCC 481, G. Jayshree and Ors. v. Bhagwandas S. Patel and Ors. MANU/SC/8451/2008 : (2009) 3 SCC 141 and C.A. No. 5239/2002 - Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors., decided on 3.12.2009.

New Argument on Fact is not permitted in Appeal

This new argument therefore on a question of fact cannot be permitted to be taken more so in the absence of any evidence having been brought on record in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Bharat Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others, MANU/SC/0047/1988 : AIR 1988 SC 2181

When foundation goes edifice falls

Chairman Cum Managing Director, Coal India Limited v. Ananta Saha, (2011) 5 SCC 142

Sublato fundamento cadit opus

Sent from phone

ITC - Entry Tax matter

ITC Limited v. State of UP, 2012 1 ADJ 607

Upheld the validity of entry tax act 2007

Sent from phone

Non execution of sale deed despite allotment

Ganesh Prasad v. LDA Lucknow, 2012 (1) ADJ. 247 (DB) (LB)

Sent from phone

Residential - commercial, town plan cannot be altered, no banking activity in residential area

2012 2 SCC 232
RK Mittal v. State of UP

Master plan has force of law, it has to be amended by statutory procedure and not be exec order.

Sent from phone