Dear Mr VL Nagarkar,
If the company has incontrovertible evidence for corruption or misuse/abuse of this authority then the company can terminate the DGM even without conducting the domestic enquiry. Nevertheless, going beyond law, let us look from the management science perspective.
Employee could file a suit even if the domestic enquiry was conducted. Nevertheless, if the enquiry was free and fair, then courts generally do not intervene and dismiss the petition. If the enquiry is not conducted then company has to prove the compelling reasons for termination even without the enquiry. What if the lawyer fails to convince the judge on merits of doing so? Court judgements also depend on the forcefulness with which the lawyers plead their cases. Lack of proper argument has risk of setting aside termination with payment of back wages.
Conducting the domestic enquiry is a great tool of time management. Yes, enquiry in itself is time consuming however, it acts as deterrence to the aggrieved employee in going for litigation. Not all lawyers takes the cases what comes to them. They also examine the merits of the case. Therefore, conducting domestic enquiry helps companies in avoiding time spent in litigation and payment of fees to the lawyer. Even if the case comes for hearing, it helps in early disposal and avoids time and money spent in the lengthy hearings.
By conducting the domestic enquiry, management sends a signal to the one and all that the environment justice prevails in the company. A culture of fairness and justice motivates the employees.
The lone terrorist who survived in 26/11 attack in Mumbai was prosecuted and the court case went on for years. Material evidence of all sorts was available against him. Yet our courts gave him patient hearing and he was awarded punishment after lot of deliberations. Time spent in such case apart, India earned esteem from other democratic countries for upholding the principles of natural justice.
Thanks,
Dinesh Divekar