Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
In the case of Uttarakhand Transport Corporation & Ors. v. Heera Singh Parihar, a two judge bench of the Supreme Court of India, comprising of Justice D. Y. Chandrachud and Justice Hrishikesh Roy, on December 18, 2019 held that any Disciplinary Inquiry conducted by an employer to inquire the charges against the employee cannot be considered as quasi criminal.
Heera Singh Parihar was a driver at Uttarakhand Transport Corporation. On 4 January 2005, he assaulted one of his colleagues. The charge sheet having been issued to the respondent, the inquiry officer concludes that the alleged charges have been proved. Meanwhile, the disciplinary authority also came to the conclusion that the charges were proved and submitted its order with a penalty of stoppage of eight increments.
The respondent filed a claim petition at the Public Service Tribunal, Uttarakhand against such disciplinary proceedings. But the petition was dismissed. After appealing to the High Court, the court held that the very nature of a disciplinary process is quasi criminal and overturned the judgement of the tribunal. Therefore, the appellant has brought the case before the Supreme Court.
Justice D. Y. Chandrachud said that the High Court has ignore a crucial fact that the disciplinary inquiry had extra evidence that was collected during the course of the inquiry which supports the charges against Heera Singh. And since the statement of the Assistant Regional Manager and the station in charge, both of them being present during the incident are evidence, the penalty imposed is not arbitrary. Thus, disciplinary proceedings are not quasi criminal. The limitation of the interference of the High Court is only when there is absolutely no evidence that can support the charges of alleged party.
Therefore, the Supreme Court sets aside the judgement of the High Court and the appeal is dismissed.
86540
103860
630
114
59824