Back
SAUGATA BHATTACHARYYA
Tarakeshwar Pandey – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Saugata Bhattacharyya, J. - This is a writ petition pertaining the decision of the Revising Authority dated 15th March, 2011 whereby the Revising Authority in terms of Rule 219.4 of the Railway Protection Force Rules 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'said Rules of 1987') enhanced the punishment against the petitioner to the extent of compulsory retirement from service with full pensionary benefit with immediate effect.
2. The petitioner was a Sub-Inspector of Railway Protection Force who was charge-sheeted vide order dated 3rd December, 2009. The allegation as contained in the charge-sheet is reproduced below:
'Charge:-
Sri T.K. Pandey, SIPF of RPF/Post/ Ranchi is charged for discreditable conduct in that while girls students of Aligarh Muslim University were travelling by a Special train from Aligarh, on 1.11.2009 at about 18.00 hrs, on arrival of the train at Bokaro Railway station he (SI Sri Pandey) along with others tried to board in the same coach unauthorisedly also abused and threatened them on refusal by Fahad Allam, Nadia Allam and Sabnam Ara.
This amounts to discreditable conduct in a manner prejudicial to discipline and bringing discredit to the reputation of the for
The doctrine of constructive res-judicata applies when a party fails to challenge certain findings in a previous petition, and the court cannot interfere with the disciplinary authority's decision if....
The principles of natural justice, including the right to be heard and the right to a fair and impartial hearing, must be adhered to in disciplinary proceedings against government employees.
Judicial review in disciplinary cases limited to perversity or conscience-shocking disproportionality; upheld enquiry proving record tampering for one-day absence but directed revision of compulsory ....
The impugned action of the Force in issuing the orders of preparation and issuance of a fresh charge-sheet and a full-fledged departmental enquiry could not be sustained under Rule 219.4 (b).
A disciplinary authority must provide an opportunity for hearing when it disagrees with an enquiry officer's findings, and any punishment not prescribed by statutory rules is without jurisdiction.
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 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.
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
