Nor can it be avoided on flimsy grounds; Whether Right to 'Oral Inquiry' can be waived

 48 Nor can it be avoided on flimsy grounds; Whether Right to 'Oral Inquiry' can be waived

210. Nor can it be avoided on flimsy grounds
The holding of inquiry cannot be avoided on flimsy grounds or merely for the convenience of the employer [Divil. Supdt., Northern Railway v. Ram Saran, AIR 1961 All . 336] or on the ground of expediency. Thus, avoiding the inquiry in the following situations was frowned upon by the courts :

(i) “it is in the public interest, not to delay the matter but to impose exemplary and immediate punishment” [Bhubaneswar Kalita v. Union of India, (1987)4 ATC 349];

(ii) on the presumption that the charged employee cannot improve upon his defence by personal hearing [Girish Goswami v. A.K. Roy, 1969 SLR 72];

(iii) that the ‘modus operandi' of misconduct will get known to other employees who may misuse it [A. Lourdusamy v. Union of India, (1986)1 ATR 253];

(iv) a summary procedure will be sufficient in the circumstances of the case [Govind Sharma v. M.P. State Textile Corporation Ltd., 1992 Lab. IC (M.P.) 241];

(v) that it is not feasible or desirable to hold the inquiry [Chief Security Officer v. Singasan Rabi Das, AIR 1991 SC 1043).

211. Whether Right to 'Oral Inquiry' can be waived ?
In situations where the right to inquiry flows from the provisions of the Constitution or some Act or the Rule, the requirements to the extent provided for therein shall be mandatory and does not depend upon asking of the employee. Thus, where the allegations are denied, an oral inquiry becomes mandatory even though the delinquent does not expressly state that he desires such an inquiry [Shyam Sunder v. State, AIR 1957 Orissa 222].

 

 

Courtesy : yourskayveeyes.blogspot.com