Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
S.G.PANDIT, K.V.ARAVIND
H. N. Basavaraju, S/o. Nanjegowda – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka, Principal Secretary To The Government Department Of Public Works, Ports And Inland Water Transport – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. context of disciplinary action against the petitioner (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court's evaluation of procedural fairness and evidence (Para 3 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. arguments regarding misconduct and responsibility (Para 4 , 5 , 11) |
| 4. judicial review parameters in disciplinary inquiries (Para 8) |
| 5. final decision to dismiss the writ petition (Para 12) |
ORDER :
S.G. PANDIT, J.
The petitioner, a retired Assistant Executive Engineer, is before this Court questioning order dated 21.09.2020 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru, Tribunal, in Application Nos.266-268/2018, whereunder his challenge to the order of penalty of withholding 5% of pension permanently and recovery of loss caused to the State Exchequer is rejected.
2. While the petitioner was working as Assistant Executive Engineer in PWD Sub-Division, Gubbi, on the allegation of committing misconduct in carrying out the work of improvement and re-chip carpeting to Nelligere-Sira road from 29 to 36 KM in Gubbi Taluk, Articles of Charge dated 07.06.2014 were issued by respondent No.2. Thereafter, an enquiry was conducted, wherein the Disciplinary Authority examined PW1 and marked documents Exs.P1 to P4, whereas p
Disciplinary authorities are the sole judges of evidence during inquiries, and judicial review is limited to procedural fairness and not the merits of the findings.
Article 351-A of CSR empowers the Governor to institute or continue inquiry after retirement.
Judicial review of disciplinary actions is limited; courts do not interfere unless findings are perverse or punishment is shockingly disproportionate.
Disciplinary proceedings against government employees must be conducted fairly, based on adequate evidence, and require reasoned decisions to uphold the principles of natural justice.
Judicial review of disciplinary proceedings is limited to evaluating the inquiry process's fairness, with the onus generally on the authority to establish charges against the employee.
Judicial review of disciplinary actions is limited; courts cannot reappraise evidence or substitute their judgment unless findings are arbitrary or unsupported by evidence.
The court upheld the impugned punishment order as sustainable in the eyes of the law.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
