Back
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, PARTHA SARTHY
Ravindra Nath Chourasia – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
K. Vinod Chandran, CJ.—The appeal is against the judgment of the learned Single Judge approving the order dated 26.10.2015 (Annexure- 8 of the writ petition) which withheld 50% of the pension of the appellant and also the salary for the suspension period, which was passed by Annexure-9 (of the writ petition) dated 01.02.2016.
2. The appellant was proceeded with through Annexure-1 (of the writ petition) charge-sheet on various allegations. The allegations were of the appellant being a member of patrolling party in the conduct of elections; having changed the route while bringing back sixteen ballot boxes to the strong room, causing damage due to murky water having entered the ballot boxes; which destruction of ballot papers was also not disclosed to the higher authorities. The above action resulted in a re-polling.
3. It was also alleged that the appellant was incharge of various schemes of the sub-divisions at Madhepura, Murliganj and Udaikishunganj, wherein there was no updating of status report which created difficulty in reconciling the accounts.
4. The enquiry report found that there were 131 toilets reported as completed by the appellant as reported by the Executive Engineer-cum-
Termination based solely on documents without witness examination violates principles of natural justice, necessitating a fair enquiry process.
The establishment must prove charges through a formal inquiry and evidence before imposing major penalties. Non-holding of oral inquiry is a serious flaw that can vitiate disciplinary proceedings.
A disciplinary enquiry must be based on evidence; mere allegations or FIR production without witness examination cannot substantiate a finding of guilt.
Disciplinary proceedings quashed for defective charge memo without imputations, documents, witnesses; no departmental evidence or witnesses; perfunctory enquiry report lacking independent reasons and....
The disciplinary authority must show a difference of opinion with the enquiry officer's finding before inflicting punishment and provide an opportunity for representation.
The court emphasized the need for a distinction in imposing punishment on retired employees with respect to withholding pension, considering it as an insurance for employees in the last quarter of th....
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
