ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH, PARTHA SARTHY
UNION OF INDIA – Appellant
Versus
NARAYAN PRASAD RAI – Respondent
JUDGMENT/ORDER :
Ashwani Kumar Singh, J.
This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the order dated 23.02.2017 passed in O.A. No. 142 of 2013 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna (for short 'the Tribunal') whereby the Tribunal has set aside the order of punishment inflicted in disciplinary proceeding along with the appellate and revisional orders on the basis of penalty being shockingly disproportionate to the proved charges.
2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that while the respondent was working as Senior Commercial Clerk at Murliganj, a trap was organized by the vigilance on 13/14.02.2007 in which it was found that he was involved in obtaining excess money from passengers and not declaring the cash properly, which is violative of Rule 3.1(i), (ii) and (iii) of Railway Service (Conduct) Rules, 1966.
3. Accordingly, a departmental proceeding was initiated on 07.06.2007 wherein the following imputations of charges were drawn :
Bhagat Ram vs. State of H. P. & Ors.
Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Ltd. & Anr. vs. Mukul Kumar Choudhuri & Ors.
Council of Civil Service Unions vs. Minister for Civil Service
Disciplinary Authority-cum- Regional Manager vs. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik
Divisional Controller, KSRTC (NWKRTC) vs. A.T. Mane
Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation vs. B.S. Hullikatti
Regional Manager, U.P. SRTC, Etawah & Ors. vs. Hoti Lal & Anr.
State Bank of India & Anr. vs. Bela Bagchi & Ors.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.