Back
JOYMALYA BAGCHI, AJAY KUMAR GUPTA
Union of India – Appellant
Versus
Jayanta Kumar Pathak – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
JOYMALYA BAGCHI, J.
1. This is a second round of litigation between the parties.
2. Respondent/writ petitioner was posted as officiating commandant of 34th Battalion, SSB, Alipurduar between 8th February, 2017 to 23rd April, 2017. A compliant was made by constable G.D. Shyam Nandan Singh of the said battalion to the headquarters SSB, New Delhi alleging respondent/writ petitioner had received undue favours from suppliers. Letter was forwarded to Front Headquarters, Siliguri and a discreet enquiry was initiated. During the discreet enquiry an anonymous letter was received and forwarded to the Front Headquarters with recommendation of Chief Vigilance Officer. Sri A.K. Pandey, Inquiry Officer conducted the court of enquiry and submitted a report of 7th December, 2017. The report was forwarded to the Assistant Director Vigilance FHQ, SSB.
3. In the meantime, respondent/writ petitioner had been posted at 35th Battalion, SSB, Patna. Accordingly, court of enquiry report was forwarded to the Inspector General, Front Headquarters, SSB, Patna. After examining the matter and obtaining approval of the Inspector General, Deputy Inspector General SHQ, SSB, Gaya directed disciplinary action
The court upheld the legality of the General Force Court proceedings, affirming that the respondent was afforded due process and opportunities for defense.
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....
The Summary Security Force Court proceedings were flawed due to significant delay and lack of adherence to natural justice, rendering the dismissal of the petitioner unlawful.
The non-appointment of a presenting officer in a departmental enquiry vitiates the enquiry and violates the principle of natural justice.
Disciplinary proceedings must comply with natural justice, allowing charges to be substantiated through witness testimony and access to relevant documents.
Arraignment in ITBP proceedings is complete only when the accused pleads guilty or not guilty; member substitution prior to this stage is compliant with the Rules.
Disciplinary inquiry vitiated if Disciplinary Authority acts as Enquiry Officer and prosecutor, records adverse witness statements without cross-examination, relies on unfurnished reports, creating r....
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
