Back
P. B. BAJANTHRI, PURNENDU SINGH
Surendra Bhakta – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
B. C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India, 1995 SCC (6) 749; Union of India vs. Subrata Nath, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 998—Relied.
Purnendu Singh, J.—Heard Mr. Hemant Kumar Karn, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the Union of India.
2. In the instant writ petition, petitioner has assailed the order dated 15.11.2017 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna in O.A. No. 050/00613/2014 under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 whereby and whereunder petitioner has challenged the order dated 23.04.2014 whereby the petitioner was awarded punishment of ‘withholding of 25% of the monthly pension otherwise admissible to the petitioner for a period of five years’ in a disciplinary proceeding held pursuant to the Charge Memorandum No. 5240 dated 04.12.2012 and further Order No. 11014/42/L&R/2013/1108 dated 23.04.2014 passed under the signature of Dy. Inspector General/Pers., Directorate General, Central Industrial Security Force, New Delhi as contained in Annexure – P/6 imposing punishment upon the petitioner of ‘withholding of 25% of the monthly pension otherwise admissible to the petitioner for a period of fi
The court upheld the disciplinary authority's decision, emphasizing limited judicial review and the necessity of maintaining integrity in public service.
Fairness in disciplinary proceedings requires adherence to natural justice, and actions unsupported by adequate evidence are not sustainable.
The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to principles of natural justice in disciplinary inquiries, asserting that findings must be supported by adequate evidence and fair procedures.
The High Court does not act as an appellate authority in disciplinary matters and will not interfere with the quantum of punishment unless it is shocking to the conscience.
Grant of reinstatement - Court will not ordinarily interfere in the punishment imposed in the disciplinary proceedings to substitute its own conclusion on penalty except where the punishment imposed ....
Disciplinary action necessitates adherence to statutory rules, including providing a disagreement note when diverging from inquiry findings, as failure to do so violates principles of natural justice....
The court emphasized the importance of maintaining discipline in an armed force and upheld the disciplinary authority's decision based on the evidence presented during the proceedings.
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
