13 December, 2012

""Danik Jagran"" A Leading News Paper has recognised the work of Spreading Legal Awareness by publishing the story on 10th December 2012


Team Legal Point Foundation
Dr. Deepak Miglani [President]
Dinesh Miglani [Treasurer]
Kamal Jeet [Secretary]
Contact Number:-
09215514435
Email:- legalbuddy@gmail.com

15 November, 2012

Another PIL for scrapping coal block allocations


Another PIL has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking cancellation of all the coal blocks allotted to private companies since 1993 and a court-monitored CBI probe into the alleged scam involving over Rs 1 trillion.
The petition has been filed by former Secretaries, including Cabinet Secretary TSR Subramanian, and Common Cause, an NGO, alleging that the Centre had gone for “massive allocation of the scarce natural resource of coal to a few select private companies at no cost in a completely arbitrary and non-transparent manner causing a huge loss to the public exchequer running into tens of lakhs of crores of rupees.”
Among the other petitioners are former Chief Election Commissioner N Gopalaswami, former Union Secretaries Ramaswamy Iyer and Sushil Tripathi and Admirals (retd) RH Tahiliani and L Ramdas, who has been the Navy Chief.
Either a court-monitored probe by the CBI or a Special Investigation Team (SIT) was necessary to “unearth the full magnitude of the coal scam which involves not only the Ministry of Coal but also the Prime Minister’s Office, Ministry of Steel, Ministry of Power and governments of various states where the coal blocks are located,” the PIL said.
On September 14, the Supreme Court issued notice to the Coal Secretary on a similar petition. The apex court has sought details on various aspects to ascertain as to whether any guidelines had been violated in the allocations.
Since 1993, through the process of screening committee, successive governments had been allocating coal blocks for captive use of the manufacturers of iron and steel, power and cement. This process was highly arbitrary and resulted in a windfall gain to private companies, the PIL said.
The Coal Ministry announced a competitive bidding policy in June 2004, but continued with the non-transparent process of the screening committee “which was marred by multiple illegalities, corruption and favouritism. The screening committee recommended the allocation of coal blocks without comparative evaluation of the inter se merits among applicants, which is apparent from the minutes of the meetings of screening committee,” the petitioners said.
Of the 250 coal blocks allotted since 2004, 101 were for steel companies, 97 for power, 10 for cement and 37 for “commercial” use. The term commercial was apparently meant to violate the statutorily mandated “captive” concept and thereby provide ample scope to private parties to sell coal for windfall profits in violation of laws, they contended. 

The petitioners include former Cabinet Secretary TSR Subramanian, former Chief Election Commissioner N Gopalaswami, former Union Secretaries Ramaswamy Iyer and Sushil Tripathi and Admirals (retd) RH Tahiliani and L Ramdas.
Source:- Thursday, November 15, 2012, Chandigarh, India, P. 2
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2012/20121115/nation.htm#2

Team Legal Point Foundation
Legal Point Foundation
Dr. Deepak Miglani [President] 
            9215514435      [Haryana],            9958086337      [Delhi]
Dinesh Miglani [Secretary],            8059670005      
Email:- legalbuddy@gmail.com 

Legal Tip is being received by approximately 500000 people. One day we will surely remove the legal ignorance from our country.


103 VACANCIES OF CLERK ::Fill posts on merit, orders HC


Twentyfive years after the Haryana Selection Service Board issued an advertisement for the recruitment for clerks in various departments, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the filling of the vacancies “strictly on the basis of merit”. In all, 103 vacancies will now be filled on the basis of the merit list prepared by the state of Haryana and other respondents.
A list of 5,373 candidates was declared on October 15, 1989, pursuant to the advertisement issued on July 22, 1987. Out of the total, candidates up to merit number 4,645 were appointed.
A single Judge directed the appointment of first 12 meritorious petitioners after 43 unsuccessful candidates filed a writ petition in the High Court. The order was passed on the premise that there were only 12 vacancies.
After a series of litigation, the matter ultimately went to the Supreme Court and was finally decided on August 19, 1998, in the case of Roshni Devi versus state of Haryana. Referring to the judgment in Roshni Devi’s case, the Bench of Chief Justice
Arjan Kumar Sikri and Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain asserted that “necessary directions have already been given in this very judgment”. A direction “clearly maintains that if the vacancies exist during the period in question, the appointments could be made strictly on the basis of their merit position in the list…. A cumulative reading of the directions
provides the complete answer and the course of action to be chartered.
“It is clear that the court had directed that the appointments are to be made strictly on the basis of merit in the list prepared by the state on the basis of selection. It does not leave any room for the original writ petitioners to argue that others who did not approach the court should be excluded”.
The Bench concluded: “We, thus, set aside the direction of the single Judge given in the order or other orders confined to the filling of the posts on the basis of the inter-se merit of the writ petitioners alone.
“Instead, it is directed that 103 vacancies which according to the state of Haryana still exist pertaining to the period October 15, 1989, to November 18, 1995, shall be filled strictly on the basis of the merit position in the list prepared by the respondents”.
Source:- Thursday, November 15, 2012, Chandigarh, India, P. 5
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2012/20121115/haryana.htm#3

Team Legal Point Foundation
Legal Point Foundation
Dr. Deepak Miglani [President] 
            9215514435      [Haryana],            9958086337      [Delhi]
Dinesh Miglani [Secretary],            8059670005      
Email:- legalbuddy@gmail.com 

Legal Tip is being received by approximately 500000 people. One day we will surely remove the legal ignorance from our country.



Legal Alert:::Leave encashment to retiring employee facing probe can't be withheld: HC



The Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a significant judgment, has held that the amount of leave encashment, payable to a retiring employee facing criminal or department proceedings, cannot be withheld.
With this, a Full Bench of the High Court, comprising three Judges, has cleared the air on the contentious issue of holding back the retirement benefits of alleged “delinquent” employees.
The Ruling
Taking up an appeal filed by Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd and other appellants, the three-Judge Bench of Chief Justice Arjan Kumar Sikri, Justice Ranjit Singh and Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain ruled: “ Only gratuity or death-cum-retirement gratuity can be withheld… We are, therefore, in agreement with the view (earlier) taken by the Division Benchof this court in BS Gupta’s case, holding that amount of leave encashment is payable to the retiring employee notwithstanding the pendency of the departmental inquiry or criminal proceedings”.
The Case
An employee of the Civil Supplies Corporation, Pyare Lal was served with two charge sheets. He attainted the age of superannuation during the pendency of the inquiry in April 2006. He was allowed to retire, but retirement benefits were withheld till the decision of the pending charge sheets.
An appeal was filed by the corporation, after a Single Judge of the High Court directed the release of retirement benefits, except gratuity.
The Issue
Before reaching the conclusion, the Bench asserted that the corporation’s appeal against employee Pyare Lal gave rise to a vital question of law, which was required to be decided. “The question is as to whether retiral benefits of an employee, who at the time of his superannuation was facing departmental action, can be withheld and, if so, which of those retiral benefits the employer is entitled to withhold”.
The Bench observed at the outset that the parties were unanimous that the gratuity of such employees could be withheld during the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings. But, the issue was whether encashment of earned leave could also be withheld, “or was it the right of an employee to get his earned leave encashed on the date of his superannuation, as retiral benefit, notwithstanding the disciplinary action which he is facing”. The Bench added: " What is to be seen in the present case is as to whether there is any rule which empowers the appellants to withhold the benefit of encashment of leave. Referring to rule 2.2(c) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, the Bench concluded that except for gratuity or death-cum-retirement gratuity, the withholding of other retirement benefit was not stipulated.
“Counsel for the appellants also could not point out any other rule authorising the appellants to withhold the benefit of encashment of leave”.

We are in agreement with the view (earlier) taken by the Division Bench of this court, holding that leave encashment is payable to the retiring employee notwithstanding the pendency of a departmental inquiry or criminal proceedings
— High Court Bench
Source:- Thursday, November 15, 2012, Chandigarh, India, P. 5
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2012/20121115/punjab.htm#15

Team Legal Point Foundation
Legal Point Foundation
Dr. Deepak Miglani [President] 
9215514435[Haryana],9958086337[Delhi]
Dinesh Miglani [Secretary],8059670005
Email:- legalbuddy@gmail.com 

Legal Tip is being received by approximately 500000 people. One day we will surely remove the legal ignorance from our country.

04 August, 2012

Ex-Army major, wife sentenced to 10 years in jail for battering kid


A former Army major and his second wife were sentenced to 10 years in jail by a Delhi court on Saturday for torturing and trying to kill their minor son from the officer's first wife.

"You are sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment under section 307 (attempt to murder) of the Indian Penal of Code and six months of imprisonment under section 23 of the Juvenile Justice Act. Both sentences shall run concurrently," said additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Virender Bhat.

The court also imposed a fine of Rs 60,000 each on Major (Retd) Lalit Balhara and his second wife Preeti Balhara after holding them guilty of battering the minor boy and trying to kill him after the victim's mother, herself an Army captain, had died in 2000.

The victim's counsel Ravinder S Garia had demanded the harshest possible punishment for the convicts, saying the minor has suffered permanent injury and has been left with 'battered baby syndrome' for life.

The boy, now 13, was first brought to the hospital on April 23, 2002 - at the age of three - for treatment of alleged consumption of insecticide by him.

In weeks and months ahead, the hospital virtually became his second home where he was admitted repeatedly for treatment of various injuries ranging from fractured ribs to bleeding skull and smashed teeth and all the time with a starved look.

The Delhi police had filed a charge sheet in the matter against the couple for attempt to murder in 2009, four years after the Delhi high court ordered a probe into the case.

The case came to light in 2005, when the minor's maternal grandparents had moved the high court seeking his custody, accusing his father Lalit Balhara and the officer's second wife Preeti of torturing him after his mother's death.

The child was then produced before the court on February 20, 2005. Taken aback by his physical and mental condition, the court had sought a medical report on his condition. The major and his wife were also sent for psychiatric consultation at the Base Hospital, Delhi Cantonment.

The medical report stated that "parents were unable to explain as to why the child sustained injuries and concluded that the minor boy was suffering from a 'battered baby syndrome'- a combination of physical injuries such as broken bones, bruises, burns and malnutrition as a result of gross abuse by a parent or caregiver.

After going through the reports, a division bench of the high court on February 28, 2005 had handed over the child's custody to his maternal grandfather, saying "investigation is needed to ascertain the manner in which injuries have been caused."

During the trial, the boy had deposed against his parents and said he was repeatedly tortured and was locked up in a room without food. He had also said he was often beaten with stick when he would cry. They would also insert the stick in his mouth due to which some of his teeth were broken, he had said.

The couple had denied the allegations saying the child was special by birth and suffered injuries after falling off chairs and tables. The child's medical report and his statement, however, had proved the case against them.
Source:-    PTI | Aug 4, 2012, 03.16PM IST 

19 June, 2012

Legal Knowledge:::HOW TO DRAFT CHARGE-SHEETS


Under Industrial law, there is no form prescribed for a charge-sheet hence it becomes more important to draft it more carefully with precision and clarify. There are large number of cases wherein the departmental/domestic enquires have been vitiated for want of valid charge-sheet since it forms the basis of the disciplinary proceedings. The framing of a charge sheet being the first necessity for disciplinary action. It must be precise, specific and must set out all the necessary particulars. No labour enactment provides the formats or even essential ingredients of a charge-sheet. Ordinarily, a charge sheet would indicate the proposed punishment but there is not hard and fast rule about it.
What is Charge-Sheet?
A charge-sheet is a written statement of specific allegations addressed to tell the delinquent what he is supposed or alleged to have done which is not acceptable as per the code of conduct. The object being to give the employee the exact idea of the misconduct committed by him so that he may submit his explanation in his defence.
In addition to the above, the charge-sheet should also take care to mention the particulars of time, place of occurrence and the manner in which the incident alleged to have taken place so as to remove vagueness and make the charge definite by mentioning these essential factors.
Note:- One of the fundamental rules of natural justice is that the person affected should have full and true disclosure of the facts sought to be used against him. He must know the nature of the misconduct alleged against him and must be acquainted with it in the first instance, it means that the charge-sheet is the sine qua non of the domestic enquiry.
The heart of the matter is that no disciplinary action can be initiated against the employee or a workman unless he is first served with a charge sheet containing all the charges and their essential particulars.
The basic requirement of drafting a charge sheet is that it should give to the employee a fair idea of the which he is to face. If a particular act is misconduct when committed on the premises of the establishment, then the place is a part of the charge itself. So while drafting a charge-sheet, the attempt should be to ensure that the charge mentioned in the charge-sheet is specific as well as complete in all essential constituents.
The principles of natural justice require that the person charged should know precisely the nature of the offence so that he may be able to explain what he has to say about it and prove innocence in the matter. Vague allegations should be avoided while drafting a charge-sheet.
Four Important Essential Ingredients of a Charge-Sheet
A charge-sheet being root of the disciplinary action, when vague, will vitiate the whole proceedings hence the penalty imposed on delinquent will be quashed.
A delinquent employee must be provided with the copies of the documents as relied upon by the Displinary Authority and the burden, to show that non-supply of documents required by the delinquent did not cause any prejudice to him, lies upon the Disciplinary Authority.
The object of a charge-sheet  is that the delinquent must know what he is charged with and have the adequate opportunity to meet the charges and to defend himself by giving a proper explanation.
Failure to enclose the list of witnesses along with the charge memo will violate the Conduct Regulations, hence the entire disciplinary proceedings will be vitiated when it is so stipulated.
Thirty One Things to Remember While Drafting a Charge-Sheet
  1. The charge-sheet must be specific and must set-out all the necessary particulars. It will serve no purpose at all to presume that the employee is fully informed of the charges because of any previous proceedings against him.
  2. It is imperative to hold a regular enquiry before terminating the services of a workman. The enquiry itself must be preceded by serving on the workman concerned, a regular charge-sheet devoid of any vagueness. Any warnings that might have been given to a workman previously or form time to time or that his attention had been drawn to any fault, lapses on his part previously can , by no means, take the place of a regular enquiry.
  3. Vague accusation, which the workman could not possibly follow, should not be made in the charge-sheet.
  4. The charge-sheet must accurately and precisely state whether the act of commission or omission constituting misconduct is in violation of any standing order or not. The test is whether the charge conveys to the employee concerned, the exact nature of misconduct in a way that would enable him to mete the charge.
  5. Where, for instance, the charge is for unauthorized collection of subscription on the work premises, the purpose for which such a subscription was collected need not be stated. But the time, date and place i.e. when and where the collection was made must be clearly mentioned.
  6.  When under the standing orders or service rules, an act such as absence without leave, late attendance, negligence or disobedience is misconduct, when it is committed habitually then in such a case the word, habitual forms an essential constituent of the charge and must be expressly mentioned in the charge-sheet.
  7. Similarly, if the standing orders or service rules provide that damage to property or disobedience or insubordination must be willful then the willfulness is an essential part of the charge and must be stated in the charge-sheet.
  8. If theft or dishonesty is a misconduct only if it is committed in connection with the employer’s business or property, then this must be so stated in the charge-sheet in all its details.
  9. If the charge-sheet is for arrogant conduct towards a superior, then it must be so stated in the charge-sheet giving the occasion on which the misconduct was committed and in respect of which particulars of the superior.
  10. When an employee is charged for  habitually disobeying the instructions, then each set of disobedience on his part must be separately mentioned in details in the charge-sheet.
  11. The time and date of the incident should be mentioned in the charge-sheet in order to avoid vagueness and to enable the employee to make defence of alibi.
  12. When an employee is charged for using objectionable and offending language, then the actual words used must be stated in the charge-sheet. In one case the facts were that the dismissal of the workman, a car driver, was set aside and reinstatement was awarded. The Industrial Tribunal observed the exact words or at best a substantial reproduction of the same must be held material in order to come to a conclusion as to whether the words used are insulting or abusive or not, particularly in view of the fact that a much greater laxity of language is permitted now a days.
  13. While verbiage is to be avoided, use of any abbreviations such as etc. must be equally shunned. Phrases such as an other document is vague and ineffective and so, only reference should be made to a specific thing or a particular person.
  14. It is important to remember that the language of a charge-sheet , while being precise, must not give the impression that the employer has taken the question of the employee’s guilt as a foregone conclusion.
  15. The delinquent employee be furnished with the documents and reports as referred to in the charge-sheet otherwise his termination will be quashed.
  16. As far as practicable, the language of a charge-sheet must be simple and be one that is commonly understood or in common usage.
  17. When the previous record of the employee is relied upon, then sufficient particulars of the previous bad record should be specified in the charge-sheet.
  18. When the charge to be leveled is that an employee altered the relevant entries in the record with some ulterior motive then, in such a case, the workman should be informed as to what precisely was the motive being attributed to him for so doing because unless this is done, the charge-sheet would suffer from the disqualification of vagueness.
  19. Mere cataloguing for recital of charges without the requisite details, a charge-sheet is open to question of its validly and is an exercise in futility.
  20. Make use of the term ‘about’ in relation to the date and time of a particular incident of misconduct.
  21. A valid charge-sheet must be in precise terms as there is no room for using loose or vague term which fails to convey, in the correct sense, a charge brought against an employee.
  22. In the case of a theft, it is most necessary to mention full particulars of the goods or articles stolen.
  23. Full particulars, with regard to the date and time of the incident including the place of occurrence , must be indicated.
  24. The charge-sheet should also not be issued with a bias and closed mind as may show drawing up of a positive conclusion against delinquent and requiring him to dispel the same.
  25. Workman charged for having instigated strike, subsequently executing document of good behaviour, cannot be punished in absence of any evidence of his going back on such assurance.
  26. Another yet equally important point to be noted, while drawing up a charge-sheet is that a workman charged for tampering and falsification of weighment sheets cannot be punished for having found guilty of carelessness and negligence.
  27. If particulars of misconduct are not incorporated in the charge-sheet, then it will not be considered charge-sheet and the entire enquiry will become farce in which the principles of natural justice were not complied with. In such case the dismissal order is liable to be quashed.
  28. It is the duty of the employer to indicate to a delinquent employee served with the charge-sheet not only the precise nature of charges, but also the documents, if any, upon which the charges are based.
  29. In the absence of Regulations, an employee cannot be charge-sheeted under that.
  30. The charge-sheet must be signed by the competent authority.
  31. A charge-sheet , issued after long delay of misconduct , will vitiate the enquiry.
General Charge-Sheet
To…………
It is reported against you that on …….(Date) at ……….(time) you…………..(mention clearly the act or  acts misconduct alleged).
The acts, as alleged above to have been committed by you, amount to misconduct, which, if proved, would warrant serious disciplinary action against you.
Accordingly , you are hereby required to show cause with in ……….days of the receipt hereof as to why you should not be dismissed or otherwise punished.
If you fail to submit you explanation as required, it will be presumed that you admit the charges and have no explanantion to offer and the matter will be disposed of without any further reference to you.
Since the charges, leveled against you, are of grave and serious nature, you are hereby suspended pending further proceedings and final orders in the matter.
The receipt of this letter should be acknowledged.
Authorised Signatory
Regards
Deepak Miglani Advocate
President Legal Point Foundation
Phone No:- 09958086337(Delhi);09215514435(Haryana)
For query:- legalbuddy@gmail.com
Our main aim is to remove legal ignorance from our country.