COVER PAGE

Subject: Family Law Moot No: 2

Submitted to: Prof. (Dr) Babita Pathania

Submitted by: Uttam Panwar

Roll No- 294/22
Section – J
Course – 3 Year L.L.B
TITLE PAGE
MR. A Petitioner

ABC Company Respondent

INDEX
• Abbreviations
• List of Cases
• Names of the Parties

• Statement of jurisdiction
• Facts of the cases
• Legal issue

• Arguments Advanced
• Prayer
• References
ABBREVIATIONS TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
Art. Article
BoL Bill of Lading

RS Rupee
§- Section
SC Supreme Court

CL Clause
AIR All India Reporter
SCR Supreme Court Reporter
LIST OF CASES

State of Orissa v. Bidyabhushan Mohapatra (AIR 1963 SC 779)

Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel (AIR 1985 SC 1416)
Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar (1993) 4 SCC 727

Board of High School & Intermediate Education, U.P. v. Ghanshyam Das Gupta (AIR 1962
SC 1110)
Names of Parties
Petitioner – MR. A
Respondent – ABC Company
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The statement of jurisdiction for ABC Company Limited, as a Government of India
Undertaking located in Chandigarh, would typically outline the legal authority under which it
operates and the jurisdiction within which it conducts its business. Here's a general statement:

"ABC Company Limited, being a Government of India Undertaking, operates under the legal
framework established by the Government of India and relevant statutes governing public
sector enterprises. As such, its jurisdiction extends to activities conducted within the territory
of India, in accordance with applicable laws and regulations set forth by the Government of
India and any relevant state governments. Additionally, its operations within Chandigarh fall
within the jurisdiction of the Union Territory of Chandigarh, subject to the laws and
regulations governing such territories."
Facts

Employee A, working for ABC Company Limited, a Government of India Undertaking in

Chandigarh, faced allegations of misconduct. The company initiated disciplinary proceedings
against A and served him with a charge-sheet. A provided an explanation, but an Inquiry
Committee found the charges proven after conducting an inquiry. The Disciplinary Authority,
who was also the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the Company, accepted the
committee's report and ordered A's removal from service.

A had the right to appeal this decision before the Board of Directors of the Company as per
company regulations. However, during the appeal process, it was noted that the same person
who acted as the Disciplinary Authority, also presided over and participated in the Board's
deliberations. The Board dismissed A's appeal with a non-speaking order.

A, feeling aggrieved by the decision, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh. A argued that his removal
from service violated the principles of the rule of law and natural justice.

In essence, A's case revolves around procedural irregularities in the disciplinary process,
particularly concerning conflicts of interest and the fair application of natural justice
principles.

LEGAL ISSUES
Violation of Principles of Natural Justice: The involvement of the same person as both the
Disciplinary Authority and the presiding officer during the appeal process raises concerns
about impartiality and fairness, potentially constituting a violation of principles of natural
justice.
Conflict of Interest: The participation of the Chairman-cum-Managing Director in both the
disciplinary proceedings and the appeal process may raise issues of conflict of interest, as the
same individual is involved in multiple stages of decision-making.
Procedural Irregularities: There may be procedural irregularities in the disciplinary
process, such as inadequate opportunity for the employee to defend themselves or lack of
transparency in the decision-making process.
Non-Speaking Order: The dismissal of the appeal by the Board of Directors with a non-
speaking order may be considered inadequate, as it fails to provide reasons for the decision,
thereby impeding the employee's ability to understand the basis for the dismissal and to
challenge it effectively.
Constitutional Validity: The employee's contention that their removal from service violates
the principles of the rule of law and natural justice raises questions about the constitutional
validity of the disciplinary proceedings and the subsequent decisions made by the company

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
 Adherence to Company Regulations: ABC Company Limited followed the disciplinary
procedures outlined in its regulations, which provide for the initiation of disciplinary
proceedings, appointment of an Inquiry Committee, and appeal process before the Board of
Directors. The company acted in accordance with its established protocols.

Evidence of Misconduct: The Inquiry Committee conducted a thorough investigation into

the allegations of misconduct against the employee. The committee found sufficient evidence
to support the charges leveled against the employee, as evidenced by its report submitted to
the Disciplinary Authority.
Authority of the Disciplinary Authority: The Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the
company, acting as the Disciplinary Authority, had the legal authority to make decisions
regarding employee discipline in accordance with the company's regulations. The decision to
remove the employee from service was within the purview of the Disciplinary Authority's
powers.
Board of Directors' Deliberation: While it is acknowledged that the Chairman-cum-
Managing Director presided over the Board of Directors' meeting during the appeal process,
it is common practice for senior executives to participate in such meetings. The Board
independently considered the appeal and made a decision based on the merits of the case.
Presumption of Regularity: ABC Company Limited operated in good faith and presumed
regularity in its internal processes. The company followed established procedures to ensure
fairness and due process for all parties involved in the disciplinary proceedings.

CASE LAWS
State of Orissa v. Bidyabhushan Mohapatra (AIR 1963 SC 779): This case emphasized
the importance of following principles of natural justice in disciplinary proceedings. It held
that a person affected by the decision should be given a fair opportunity to present their case
and that the authority passing the order must act fairly and without bias.

Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel (AIR 1985 SC 1416): This case highlighted the principle
that the same person cannot act as both a prosecutor and a judge in disciplinary proceedings.
It emphasized the need for an impartial tribunal to ensure fairness.

Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar (1993) 4 SCC 727: In this case, the Supreme
Court ruled that the authority conducting the disciplinary proceedings should not be a judge
in their own cause. It stressed the importance of an independent and unbiased inquiry process.

Board of High School & Intermediate Education, U.P. v. Ghanshyam Das Gupta (AIR
1962 SC 1110): This case emphasized that the rules of natural justice require that a person
should have a fair opportunity to defend themselves before any adverse order is passed
against them. It laid down the principle of audi alteram partem (hear the other side) which is
fundamental to fair administrative proceedings.
PRAYER
In the light of the above submissions the claimant requests the Court to:
Declare that
• The court has jurisdiction to hear the present dispute
• The underlying case be governed by Indian law

Adjudge that

ABC Company Limited respectfully prays for the Court's validation of its adherence to
established regulations, due process, and principles of natural justice. May the Court affirm
the authority of the Disciplinary Body and the Board of Directors' deliberations, ensuring
fairness and upholding organizational integrity.