Adverse Action Procedures: Fill & Download for Free

“Mera qaatil hi mera munsif hai, Kya mere haq mein faisla dega!” (My murderer is my judge too, Do you think he will give the verdict in my favour?). These are some beautiful words in a ghazal (Urdu poem) written by Sudarshan Faakir and sung by Jagjit Singh.Whatever changes are made to replace the collegium system of selecting judges, will have to be approved by the Supreme Court itself, whose top judges comprise the collegium. The bench to examine the validity of the new system has to set up by the Chief Justice of India, who is also the head of the collegium. So, do you think they will allow any replacement of collegium? Will the judges give up their own powers of appointing judges?It may be recalled that by 99th Constitutional Amendment of 2014 (which came into effect from 13 April 2015), the Constitution of India was amended and a National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) was introduced to replace the existing collegium system for selection of judges to the high courts and Supreme Court.It is noteworthy that this Constitutional Amendment was approved by the Parliament by almost absolute majority in both Houses of Parliament, as all major political parties had supported this amendment. Moreover, this amendment had also been ratified by more than half of the state legislatures as per requirements.However, by a majority of 4:1, a Constitution bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India, (2016) 5 SCC 1 : AIR 2016 SC 117, had struck down the said Constitutional Amendment as being violative of the basic structure of the Constitution and had held NJAC as unconstitutional.It is not that NJAC was the best possible solution on the issue of appointment of judges. However, it was definitely better than the existing collegium system and it sought to introduce some sort of balance while still giving importance and primacy to the voice of judiciary in judges’ appointments.The NJAC was to consist of 6 members, 3 of which were the top 3 judges of the Supreme Court including CJI. Two more members of NJAC (called eminent persons) were to be selected a committee in which too CJI was a part.And, NO decision of NJAC for selection of a judge was to be valid if any two members of NJAC did not agree to such recommendation.Thus, the system would have ensured that no person could have been appointed as a Judge without the consent of the judiciary as any 2 out of 3 judges in NJAC could have vetoed the decision. At the same time, NJAC would have removed the monopoly of judiciary in selection of judiciary, and would have introduced at least some objectivity by laying down a detailed procedure for selection.Alas! The NJAC system was not even allowed to come into existence. It was struck down immediately.The existing collegium system of selecting judges is just not working. It is a bogus system. There is hardly any justice or objectivity in selection of judges. In private (and, nowadays, in public too), many judges are themselves against collegium system. There is absolute non-transparency in selection. There is no fixed criterion for selection of judges and it keeps changing from one meeting of collegium to another. Nobody knows how a person’s name is picked up, on the basis of what methodology, how the selection is made. There is no objective method of selection. Recent controversies in selection of two judges for Supreme Court again highlights the problem.But, the question is – how can the collegium system be changed? Even if Parliament passes a new amendment to the Constitution to replace the collegium system with something new (as was done recently by introduction of NJAC system), it may again be declared unconstitutional by the judiciary.I personally believe that with some changes, the NJAC system could have been a better system than the collegium system, and over time, even this NJAC could have been improved with experience.But, the Supreme Court will not allow it.If a punishment or adverse action is to be taken against a person, and if the same person has to approve that punishment or adverse action, then how do you expect that he would approve such punishment or adverse action against himself?The words of Sudarshan Faakir, mentioned in the beginning of my answer, are quite relevant in this regard.Supreme Court’s own oft-repeated dicta that “nobody shall be a judge in his own cause” (equivalent to the Latin maxim of nemo judex in causa sua) has no application to the Supreme Court itself.How can you change the collegium system, then?It is like many other ills of the Indian system that can perhaps never be changed, howsoever necessary it may be to change them.

There is nothing to handle. You said the tenant has a five day grace period and pays within that 5 days. That is almost surely your state law, and the clause in your lease is legally binding unless state law gives tenants longer to pay.It’s not clear how you can write that you gave a tenant 5 days grace in the lease and yet at the same time ask how to handle “the situation” of his paying within the 5 days you gave him. Even though it may well be annoying or inconvenient that he pays on the last day allowed, it is a day you (or probably you and the state) gave him to pay without penalty or action against him.Please understand that he is not legally paying late, and you can neither penalize him nor report him as a late payer to anyone inquiring about his payment history or report him as late to any agencies.Neither you nor the tenant can change any term or clause for the duration of the lease, unless you both reach an agreement to amend the lease, prepare the amendment, and sign it. But what incentive does he have to do that and would he? And would it even be legal? Probably no to both questions, because most (not quite all) states make at least 5 days grace mandatory.Since your tenant has not violated your own lease, the lease you gave him, required him to sign, and signed yourself, agreeing to its terms, you have no basis for doing anything official or forcible at all besides accepting the payment any time before the end of the 5 days. What you can do is point out, preferably politely, that the rent is due on the first and request that he pay on the first. I wouldn’t even do that, though. I would accept the payment as long as delivered before the 6th to my account or into my hands.What is it you want? To push him to pay on the due date? To sue? To give him notice of eviction? I think you should think twice if any of that occurs to you. If you go after him in any way contrary to your lease or law, you will be the one likely to have the legal problem. Tenants have rights, too, and one of them is not to be harassed by a landlord or receive adverse action from a landlord who isn’t willing to comply with terms in a lease he offered and agreed to. No court will support you. Landlords are expected to know and understand landlord-tenant law and their own leases, and in most states, judges have punitive power, as well as the authority to adjudicate.You might also want to consider whether it would be worth it to have a bad relationship with a tenant who can do a lot of damage or delay even further, if he is antagonized by pressure to do something the lease says he doesn’t have to do. Happy tenants are more likely to take good care of the property, pay, renew, and otherwise be good tenants.However, on the 6th day without payment, you can deliver a notice of eviction or ejectment and begin the process of eviction in accordance with the laws of your state, which you can probably find online, and through procedures from your local small claims court. Most landlords do.As for the 5 days, I would be glad to have a dependable tenant, rather than worry about having to initiate and conduct an eviction process and then deal with vacancy, the cost of market prep, and re-renting. Even if the tenant pays only within the grace period.

Major League umpires are represented by a union, the World Umpires Association, so any discipline affecting them is subject to the provisions of their collective bargaining agreement (the current CBA runs through 2019).The CBA almost certainly requires that any adverse action (including discipline) must be subject to a grievance procedure with an impartial arbitrator, and may also provide for a degree of confidentiality for such proceedings.I do know that umpire performance is monitored constantly during the course of the season, and performance reviews are held periodically. But that doesn’t mean that we are entitled to hear all about it.