Back
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, PARTHA SARTHY
Sudhansu Kumar Lal S/o Late Indrajeet Lal – Appellant
Versus
High Court Of Judicature At Patna through its Registrar General, Patna – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
K. Vinod Chandran, CJ.,
The writ petitions are filed by the very same person; a retired District & Sessions Judge, against two different penalties imposed. We are hearing the matter together since the order impugned in CWJC No. 14896 of 2011 imposed a censure while the order impugned in CWJC No. 14897 of 2011 imposed a punishment of deferring the super-time scale as applicable to the petitioner for a period of one year from 21.10.2008. The petitioner while challenging the penalties also seek for conferring super time scale from the due date; the entitlement to which will be affected, probably, on whether the penalties imposed are upheld or not.
2. We take up CWJC No. 14897 of 2011, first for consideration since it challenges the order dated 07.12.2009 while the order challenged in the other writ petition is dated 13.04.2010.
3. We heard learned Senior Counsel Shri Jitendra Kumar Singh in CWJC No. 14897 of 2011 and learned Counsel, Shri. Harsh Singh in CWJC No. 14896 of 2011 for the petitioner and Shri Sanjeev Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the High Court, appearing in both cases.
4. The learned Senior Counsel argued that the petitioner while designated as a Special Judge
Disciplinary proceedings must adhere to principles of natural justice, requiring evidence and witness examination; failure to do so renders the proceedings invalid.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that disciplinary proceedings must be based on some evidence, comply with natural justice, and ensure that the penalty is not disproportionate to t....
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....
Disciplinary findings must be based on legally admissible evidence; lack of evidence warrants judicial intervention under Article 226.
The court emphasized that a disciplinary order must provide clear reasoning; failing this, the order is unsustainable and violates principles of natural justice.
Point of Law : Service Law - Punishment of Compulsory Retirement - Illegal gratification - An order passed imposing a punishment on an employee consequent upon a disciplinary/departmental enquiry in ....
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
