Scribd
Upload
17 views2 pages

Regular Departmental Enquiry

Uploaded by

Subhankar Basu
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
17 views2 pages

Regular Departmental Enquiry

Uploaded by

Subhankar Basu
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

International Labor & Employment Law Committee Newsletter

Issue: December 2013

Editor: Ute Krudewagen, Associate Editor: Amie Aldana | Africa and Middle East Editor: Karen Seigel | Asia and
Oceania Editor: Jason Noakes | Canada Editor: Gilles Touchette | European Editor: Paul Callaghan | Latin America
Editor: Juan Carlos Varela | Law Student Editor: Liam Wood, Earle Mack School of Law at Drexel University | USA:
Trent Sutton

India

Regular Departmental Enquiry not Necessary where Employee Has


Admitted Misconduct

Preetha S, and Vikram Shroff, Nishith Desai Associates, Mumbai/Bangalore/Delhi, India

Where an employee has admitted to an act of misconduct, it will not be unlawful for their employer to impose a penalty
upon the employee without the employer conducting an internal disciplinary enquiry into whether the misconduct
occurred, the Supreme Court of India ("Supreme Court") has recently held.1

While there is no statutory requirement in India to conduct an internal enquiry in cases of misconduct, the courts in India
have previously held that a dismissal on grounds of 'misconduct' must be preceded by a just, fair and reasonable inquiry
into the occurrence of the misconduct.2 It is a fundamental rule of law that no decision must be taken which affects the
right of any person, without the person first being informed of the case against them and being given an opportunity of
putting forward their case, in accordance with the principles of natural justice.

However, the Supreme Court held that these requirements do not apply where the employee has admitted the
misconduct.

The case arose out of a petition filed on behalf of the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan school in Tura in the State of
Meghalaya, against a decision rendered by the High Court of Judicature at Bilaspur,3 reinstating a school employee who
had forcefully entered the office of the principal in an inebriated condition on the basis that the penalty imposed by the
employer was disproportionate to the nature and gravity of his misconduct.

The Supreme Court found on the basis of various precedents4 that the principle of proportionality of penalty applied only
when the penalty imposed by the employer is so disproportionate (taking into account factors such as the nature and
gravity of the charge, the past conduct of the employee, previous penalties (if any), the responsibilities of the employee
and the place of work) that it shocks the conscience of the court and the court is forced to believe that the penalty is
totally unreasonable and arbitrary.

Applying these principles, the Supreme Court observed that the alleged act of the employee constituted a serious
misconduct, particularly in view of the fact that the place of work was not a commercial establishment but a school, such
that the termination of employment of the employee was justified even in the absence of an internal enquiry.

1
Deputy Commissioner, KVS and Others v. J. Hussain 2013 LLR 1174.

2
D.K. Yadav v. J.M.A. Industries JT1993(3)SC617.
3
W.P. No. 162 of 2004.

4
Union Territory of Dadra & Nagar Haveli v. Gulabhia M Lad (2010) 5 SCC 775; Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India, (1987) 4
SCC 611.

American Bar Association Section of Labor and Employment Law


321 N Clark | Chicago, IL 60654 | (312) 988-5813

You might also like