Legal Analyst, Hrm
Asso.prof.(commerce & Management) Pg
Labour Law Advocate
Retired Chief - Ir
29th February 2016 From India, Delhi
29th February 2016 From India, Mumbai
Better discuss the real problem to get the solution to that specific problem. If you want to learn the whole process of the disciplinary proceedings that cannot be taught to you in one go. For that you may have to go through books of various authors, as the process is neither an easy one, nor a one day, one week or even one month's job. That can take months together. Plenty of steps are there to take before finalising each stage of the events listed by you. So, no time frame can be possible to be antecipated due to complexity of the process and the circumstances. You will have to spend a lot of time also to learn the whole process, but still you will feel lack of perfection having attained in the process.
29th February 2016 From India, Delhi
Normally the Domestic inquiry and guidelines are provided in the Standing Orders of an Estt. The time limits also shall find place in the guidelines. However there are certain discretionary powers given to the Presiding Officer who conducts the inquiry w.r.t. the time limits for every stages and would in conclusion gives his/her verdict on the charges referred to the PO. Time limits would depend on the nature of charges, documents & parties, witnesses involved etc. At the same time schedule for every stage should be logical and reasonable. If the inquiry dragging or the parties involved are dragging to comply with the orders of the PO, or the PO himself not adhering to reasonable time it will be open for criticism, this might jeopardize the inquiry itself. These kinds of time delay might give room for intervention of courts for judicial review of the process.
2nd March 2016 From India, Bangalore
Is a second show cause notice, disclosing the proposed punishment is must?
There are two views.
1.After the amendment to constitution of article 311, it is dispensed with. Many PSU CDA rules have removed the second show cause notice.
2.After the below supreme court rulings, it is treated as must.
Supreme Court – Union of India Vs Mohd Ramzan Khan, 20-11-1990, 1991 AIR 471, Proposed punishment has to be intimated by second show cause notice
“3....Supply of a copy of the enquiry report along with recommendation, if any, in the matter of proposed punishment to be inflicted would be within the rules of natural justice”
Supreme Court – The Management of Sri Ganapati Bus Service Vs The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, 13-12-2000, No Show cause notice proposing punishment. Dismissal held not valid
“The labour court also found that before awarding punishment of dismissal no show-cause notice as to the quantum of punishment had been issued”
Supreme Court : Union Of India vs Madhusudan Prasad on 28 October, 2003 Equivalent citations: 2004 (1) BLJR 78, 2003 (4) CTC 796, 2003 (4) JCR 231 SC Bench: K Balakrishnan, A Lakshmanan
"The above case was concerning an employee, proceeded, who was found guilty in an enquiry but the report was not furnished to the employee and show cause notice was not served on him. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court directed appropriate order should be passed regarding the back wages. In the instant case the appellate authority directed reinstatement of the respondent and held that he was not entitled to get back wages for the period he was out of service. It may be noticed that the respondent was removed from service without any enquiry and he was not even given show causes notice prior to his dismissal from service. There was fault on the part of the employer in not following the principle of natural justice. These relevant facts were considered and the learned Single Judge and also the Division Bench ordered the payment of back wages. We do not think this is a fit case where the Fundamental Rule 54 could have been invoked by the authorities. We find no merit in the appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed."
Supreme Court : The High Court Of Judicature At ... vs Shashikant S.Patil And Anr. on 28 October, 1999 AIR 2000 SC 22, 2000 (67) ECC 16, JT 1999 (8) SC 493 Author: K Thomas Bench: K Thomas, A Mishra, S S Quadri
"20. Legal position on that score has been stated by this Court in A.N. D' Sitva v. Union of India, that neither the findings of the Inquiry Officer nor his recommendations are binding on the punishing authority. The aforesaid position was settled by a Constitution Bench of this Court way back in 1963, Union of India v. H.C. Goel. . The Bench held that "the Government may agree with the report or may differ, either wholly or partially, from the conclusion recorded in the report." Their Lordships laid down the following principle: If the report makes findings in favour of the public servant and the Government disagree with the said findings and holds that the charges framed against the public servant are prima facie proved, the Government should decide provisionally what punishment should be imposed on the public servant and proceed to issue a second notice against him in that behalf."
22nd March 2016 From India, Salem
It is practically not possible to predict the time frame at this stage.
For more info you can read my blog too at - www.labourlawhub.com
15th April 2016 From India, Kolkata
In the case of domestic enquiry matters, there could be no time frame. In other cases it has to be completed as soon as possible otherwise the impact of the disciplinary action will not be felt/seen.
16th April 2016 From India, Vellore