Supreme Court Inquiry Officer
Summary
The Supreme Court of India has addressed the issue of changing inquiry officers in departmental inquiries in cases like State of U.P. V. Saroj Kumar Sinha and Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel. In the former, the court emphasized the importance of natural justice and impartiality, suggesting that a request to change the inquiry officer should be considered if there is a reasonable apprehension of bias. In the latter, the court clarified that procedural safeguards must be followed, but a breach that does not result in a miscarriage of justice may not invalidate the inquiry. The inquiry officer must act fairly and allow the employee to defend themselves.Full Conversation
yes for both cases
Sure! Here are detailed summaries for both the cases:
State of U.P. v. Saroj Kumar Sinha
- The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice in departmental inquiries.
- It held that an inquiry officer must conduct the inquiry impartially and any bias or prejudice could lead to the inquiry being vitiated.
- If there is a reasonable apprehension of bias, a request to change the inquiry officer should be considered.
Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel
- The Supreme Court clarified procedural safeguards in departmental inquiries.
- It ruled that even if the inquiry rules are not strictly followed, the dismissal or removal of an employee can be justified if the breach did not result in miscarriage of justice.
- The court also stated that the inquiry officer should act fairly and provide the charged employee with an opportunity to defend themselves.
Would you like more details on any specific aspect of these cases?
TRY ME!
Start a new chat