Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SIDDHESHWAR S.THOMBRE
Salim Shaikh – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. disciplinary inquiry details of the petitioner. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 2. natural justice and duty to inform regarding disagreement. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. disciplinary authority's obligations under regulation. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. court's intervention and directions based on findings. (Para 10 , 12) |
| 5. final ruling on the case and directives for the disciplinary authority. (Para 11) |
JUDGMENT :
SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of parties at the stage of admission.
2. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length.
3. By way of present petition, the petitioner prays that the order dated 22.11.2021 passed by the Principal Chief Security Commissioner, Mumbai CSMT be quashed and set aside.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that he joined with the Railway Protection Force. A disciplinary inquiry was initiated against the petitioner and there were total four charges levelled against him which are at page no.7. After framing of charges, the inquiry officer vide his report dated 20.02.2021 pointed out that charge nos.1 and 2 were not proved and said report was submitted to the Divisional Security Commissioner/Disciplinar
Disciplinary authorities must provide grounds for disagreement with inquiry findings to uphold natural justice; failure to do so invalidates imposed penalties.
Disciplinary authorities must provide reasons for disagreeing with enquiry officer findings and issue a second show cause notice before imposing punishment, adhering to principles of natural justice.
The delinquent employee must be afforded an opportunity to be heard before any fresh report is submitted by the Enquiry Officer in disciplinary proceedings.
The Disciplinary Authority must issue a reasoned notice of disagreement when departing from exonerating findings in disciplinary proceedings, ensuring the principles of natural justice are upheld.
The dismissal of an employee without providing the enquiry report and failing to follow principles of natural justice is illegal and warrants reinstatement.
Disciplinary authorities must provide clear, written reasons when disagreeing with inquiry officer's findings and must afford the charged officer an opportunity to respond before imposing punishment.
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
