Handbook for disciplinary authorities

In service jurisprudence, the Disciplinary Authority commands full control over the employees under its administrative control and jurisdiction. It is the disciplinary authority who examines any complaint, or decides to take suomotu action, against him; who decides whether or not to suspend him; who takes decision to prosecute him in a court of law or to take departmental action or both; who issues the charge sheet for departmental action; who appoints the inquiry officer and scrutinises its report, and decides what penalty, if any, be imposed on him. All above decisions are in his full discretion. The law of the land is that if action is taken bonafide for cogent reasons and with full opportunity of defence to the employee no court of law shall interfere in any of the above actions on merits, nor shall it re appreciate the evidence collected during inquiry and, finally, it can only rarely interfere in the punishment imposed. Thus, the disciplinary control is subject to three important restrictions, namely,
(i) before any departmental penalty is imposed on the employee, the reason for the action, with full particularity, is disclosed to him with and he is afforded a reasonable opportunity of defence;

(ii) the decision is taken in good faith, is based on relevant material and with proper application of mind, and
(iii) the requirements of natural justice are complied with, where necessary so that the employee gets full-blooded opportunity of defence.

This fundamental principle is true not only in the case of the disciplinary authorities in the Government, Public Undertakings, Government Companies, i.c., where the relationship of the employee with the employer is one of 'status' and not purely contractual but also where the employee is governed by the Industrial legislation, both in Private and Public Sector. It becomes applicable even in purely contractual relationship where a misconduct is expressly the cause of dismissal.