AIR 1996 SUPREME COURT 1669 ::1996 AIR SCW 1740 ::1997 ( ) Lab LR 268 ::(1996) BankJ 447 ::1996 (2) UJ (SC) 338 ::(1996) 1 CurLR 446 ::1996 (2) CurLR 29 ::(1996) 72 FacLR 801 ::1996 (3) SCC 364 ::1996 SCC (L&S) 717 ::(1996) 2 LabLJ 102 ::1996 (2) BankCLR 59 ::(1996) 3 Lab LN 771 ::(1996) 1 Lab LN 819 ::1996 (2) SCT 568 ::1996 (2) ServLR 631 ::(1996) 3 SCR 972 (SC) ::1996 (3) SCR 972 ::1996 (3) BankLJ 412 ::(1996) 1 CurLJ(CCR) 559 ::(1996) 3 JT 722 (SC)

Supreme Court Of India

(From : Punjab and Haryana)

Hon'ble Judge(s): B. P. Jeevan Reddy, K. S. Paripoornan , JJ

(A) Constitution of India , Art.311, Art.14— Natural justice - Principles to be followed in context of disciplinary enquiries and order of punishment imposed by employer upon employee - Scope explained. Supreme Court evolved certain basic principles of natural justice keeping in view the context of disciplinary enquiries and orders of punishment imposed by an employer upon the employee. (1) An order passed imposing a punishment on an employee consequent upon a disciplinary/departmental enquiry in violation of the rules/regulations/statutory provisions governing such enquiries should not be set aside automatically. The Court or the Tribunal should enquire whether (a) the provision violated is of a substantive nature, or (b) whether it is procedural in character. (2) A substantive provision has normally to be complied with and the theory of substantial compliance or the test of prejudice would not be applicable in such a case. (3) In the case of violaltion of a procedural provision, the position is this : procedural provisions are generally meant for affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity to the delinquent officer/employee. They are, generally speaking, conceived in his interest. Violation of any and every procedural provision cannot be said to automatically vitiate the enquiry held or order passed. Except ....