Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BHARATI DANGRE, MANJUSHA DESHPANDE
Rajesh Sahadeo Jangid of Kalyan Indian Inhabitant – Appellant
Versus
Union of India through Ministry of Railway, (Railway Board) New Delhi – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. disciplinary proceedings initiated post viral video incident. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. off-duty discreditable conduct constitutes misconduct. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. rpf rules mandate discipline on and off duty. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. inquiry findings prove charges via video evidence. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. video reveals intentional outrage of modesty. (Para 17 , 18) |
| 6. removal proportionate for disciplined force misconduct. (Para 19 , 20) |
| 7. punishment upheld; writ petition dismissed. (Para 21) |
JUDGMENT :
BHARATI DANGRE, J.
1. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 13-14/08/2018 passed by the Disciplinary Authority i.e. Assistant Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, Mumbai, thereby, imposing a penalty of removing him from service, pursuant to the disciplinary proceedings being conducted and on he being found guilty in terms of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987. In view of the said order, he was directed to deposit his appointment letter, identity card, medical facility certificate, uniform and all other valuables handed over to him as an employee of the Railway.
The aforesaid order was upheld in the Revision by the Appellate Authori
Removal from service upheld for discreditable conduct by disciplined force member captured on viral video/CCTV; inquiry valid without complainant; courts limit review, deferring to authority where pr....
Criminal acquittal nullifies departmental discreditable conduct charge based solely on FIR; off-duty personal injury non-disclosure and casual misstatement lack official duty nexus, not violating neg....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for clear reasons and objective criteria when dispensing with a departmental enquiry under Rule 161(ii) of the Railway Protection F....
High court cannot sit in appeal and examine the reasons assigned by the authority and confirmed by the appellate as well as revisional authority.
Disciplinary actions must adhere to established procedural rules; lack of conclusive evidence for original charges invalidates imposed penalties.
The applicability of Fundamental Rules and the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957 to disciplinary proceedings, and the treatment of suspension period as suspension for all purposes.
The issue of constructive res judicata and the requirement of proving guilt in a disciplinary proceeding.
(1) Question of quantum of punishment in disciplinary matters is primarily for disciplinary authority and jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226 of Constitution or of Administrative Tribunals ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of recording reasons for dispensing with the enquiry while removing a person from service, as mandated by Rule 19 (ii) of the Rules....
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
