Comments
To be sure, an employee who is dismissed for various acts of misdemeanour needs to be provided an opportunity of being heard and given access to documents and witnesses relied upon before he is fired but the charge sheet itself need not be burdened with a list of all the documents and witnesses.
The Supreme Court said so while quashing the order of the Allahabad High Court which in turn had quashed the order of dismissal passed by State Bank of India on one of its employees.
In State Bank of India v. Narendra Kumar Pandey, the Supreme Court found that the employee-respondent was given ample opportunities to make his case and examine records and witnesses.
He, however, chose to spurn them. Having spurned the opportunities, the Supreme Court pointed out, it did not lie in his mouth that he was not heard before he was fired.
The Court particularly did not agree with the High Court that the charge sheet against him made by the bank should have given the complete list of witnesses and records relied upon.
Comments
COMMENT NOW
Comments
Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.
We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of TheHindu Businessline and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.