Conduct & Disciplinary Rules - 38 : Article from Mr. K.V.Shridharan

 Conduct & Disciplinary Rules - 38 : Article from Mr. K.V.Shridharan

 

Click the below link to view previous topics

Conduct & Disciplinary Rules - 1

Conduct & Disciplinary Rules - 2

Conduct & Disciplinary Rules - 3

Conduct & Disciplinary Rules - 4

Conduct & Disciplinary Rules - 5 

Conduct & Disciplinary Rules - 6

Conduct & Disciplinary Rules - 7

Conduct & Disciplinary Rules - 8

Conduct & Disciplinary Rules - 9

Conduct & Disciplinary Rules - 10

Conduct & Disciplinary Rules - 11

Conduct & Disciplinary Rules - 12

Conduct & Disciplinary Rules - 13

Conduct & Disciplinary Rules - 14

 

Conduct & Disciplinary Rules - 15

 

Conduct & Disciplinary Rules - 16 

Conduct & Disciplinary Rules - 17 

Conduct & Disciplinary Rules - 18

 

Conduct & Disciplinary Rules - 19

 

Conduct & Disciplinary Rules - 20

Conduct & Disciplinary Rules - 21

Conduct & Disciplinary Rules - 22

 

Conduct & Disciplinary Rules - 23

Conduct & Disciplinary Rules - 24

Conduct & Disciplinary Rules - 25

Conduct & Disciplinary Rules - 26

Conduct & Disciplinary Rules - 27

Conduct & Disciplinary Rules - 28

Conduct & Disciplinary Rules - 29

Conduct & Disciplinary Rules - 30

Conduct & Disciplinary Rules - 31

Conduct & Disciplinary Rules - 32

Conduct & Disciplinary Rules - 33

Conduct & Disciplinary Rules - 34

Conduct & Disciplinary Rules - 35

Conduct & Disciplinary Rules - 36

Conduct & Disciplinary Rules - 37

Case Law on Conduct rules

16. Reacting violently to the abuses of an official visitor is not misconduct. .

(1991) 18 ATC 429 Delhi.

17. An employee assaulting another away from and outside the establishment. Such an act per se does not become an act of subversion of discipline.

1991 LLR (22) 240 Bombay High Court.

18. A conduct not in the course of employment cannot be a misconduct. Similarly, a conduct which is not misconduct as per conduct rules cannot be the subject matter of disciplinary action against a government servant. (In this case convicted for a domestic quarrel. Action under rule 19(1) CCA Rules struck down).

Krishnan Kutty XSSPOs 1975 KLT 503 H.C

19.Unauthorised absence: -The Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of ex. Constable Balwant Singh v. State of Haryana, reported in A.T.J. 1999 (2) p. 113, has held that when the employee was under treatment for ulcer in a hospital during the period of absence, such absence from duty cannot be said to be the gravest misconduct. The High Court, therefore, held the order of dismissal from service was not warranted. The punishment order was quashed and reinstatement ordered.

20.The Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal quashed the order of dismissal and ordered reinstatement in a case where the said punishment was imposed on the charge of habitual absence. The Tribunal found that the charged officer had been on unauthorised absence on ten occasions during the period from 9.10.1985 to 3.2.1986, but there was no reference to the previous instances of unauthorised absence from the period nor subsequently. The Tribunal, therefore, held that the charge of habitual absence was not proved. The Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal in the case of Smt. Mohini Navani v. Union of India and others, reported in S.L.J. 1996 (10 p. 523 held that in the case of unauthorised absence if one has already resumed his duty, the order of dismissal from service unjustified. Only decision about the period should be taken