Back
ARVIND SINGH CHANDEL
Manish Prajapati – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
Arvind Singh Chandel, J. – Since common issues are involved in these writ petitions, therefore, both these writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order.
2. Vide Memo No 1411 dated 05.04.2022, which has been communicated to the petitioner Manish Prajapati of CWJC No 1638 of 2024 through the Superintendent of Police, Kishanganj by the Assistant Director (Training), Bihar Police Academy, Rajgir vide its Memo No 1424 dated 06.04.2022 whereby and where under the petitioner Manish Prajapati has been dismissed from the services and in CWJC No 1111 of 2024, petitioner Skant Kumar Gupta has also been dismissed as per the order contained in Memo No 1410 dated 05.04.2022 which has been communicated to him through Superintendent of Police, Katihar by the Assistant Director (Training), Bihar Police Academy, Rajgir vide his Memo No 1423 dated 06.04.2022. Against the said order of termination, both the petitioners preferred departmental appeal as well as memorial which have also been dismissed. Hence, both these petitions have been preferred by the petitioners for quashing the order of termination, order passed by the appellate authority and order passed by the authority in the memori
Dismissal of an employee must adhere to procedural rules; failure to examine material witnesses violates due process, resulting in reinstatement.
The dismissal of a police officer was quashed due to procedural irregularities in the inquiry process, emphasizing the necessity of compliance with established rules.
Departmental enquiry quashed for violating rules by denying cross-examination opportunity, examining witnesses behind back with only signature proof, and failing to consider replies; remitted for fre....
Disciplinary proceedings quashed for defective charge memo without imputations, documents, witnesses; no departmental evidence or witnesses; perfunctory enquiry report lacking independent reasons and....
In departmental inquiries, the absence of strict adherence to evidentiary rules does not negate the validity of proceedings; evidence is assessed based on the preponderance of probabilities.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of evidence to prove charges in a disciplinary proceeding, the need for adherence to natural justice principles, and the entitle....
Disciplinary proceedings require oral evidence for proving charges; failure to provide a witness list vitiates the inquiry, emphasizing adherence to natural justice standards.
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
