Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Sujoy Paul, Partha Sarathi Sen
Shyamal Kar – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.
1. In this writ petition as filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the order dated 20.07.2015 as passed in OA No. 476 of 2012 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, Kolkata, hereinafter referred to as the ‘said Tribunal’ in short is impugned.
2. By the impugned order the said Tribunal declined to interfere with the order of punishment dated 14.09.2011 as passed by the Respondent No. 3 authority as has been affirmed by the Respondent No. 2 authority being the appellate authority by its order dated 13.08.2012.
3. For effective adjudication of the instant lis some relevant facts leading to filling of this writ petition are required to be dealt with in a nut shell which are as under:-
(i) At the time of alleged incident, the writ petitioner/original applicant was posted as Staff Car Driver, Grade II, DCO, West Bengal.
(ii) On 02.09.2010 under cover of a memo he was served with a charge- sheet dated 02.09.2010 containing four numbers of articles of charges including imputations of misconduct in support of those articles of charges by the Respondent No. 3 authority.
(iii) On 16.11.2010, the Respondent No. 4 authority recalled
Disciplinary proceedings initiated by an authority subordinate to the appointing authority do not violate Article 311; the standard for punishment must align with proven misconduct.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that disciplinary proceedings must adhere to the provisions of the relevant disciplinary rules and acts, and the penalty imposed must be commensura....
Punishment of dismissal of service should be awarded for gravest act of misconduct.
The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to principles of natural justice in disciplinary inquiries, asserting that findings must be supported by adequate evidence and fair procedures.
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.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of interference in disciplinary proceedings, emphasizing the need for evidence-based findings and the principles of proportionali....
The findings in the criminal and departmental proceedings were based on the same set of facts, and acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically entitle the individual to relief in departmental....
The court held that disciplinary authority's punishment must be proportionate to the misconduct, and failure to adhere to natural justice principles can warrant judicial intervention.
The court upheld the dismissal of the petitioner, emphasizing adherence to natural justice and the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings.
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
