IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SUJOY PAUL, SMITA DAS DE
Bhubaneswar Das – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background facts of appellant's service and disciplinary action. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. appellant's arguments regarding procedural flaws and lack of evidence in the departmental inquiry. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 3. department's defense highlighting evidence against the appellant. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 4. court's observation on the role of inquiry officer and evidence standards. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 32 , 34) |
| 5. principle re: misconduct and connection with employment. (Para 38 , 39) |
| 6. court's order on setting aside of the removal order. (Para 40 , 41 , 42) |
Judgment :
Sujoy Paul, J.
1. This intra court appeal assails the order of learned Single Judge passed in WPA 17108 of 2004 decided on 13th September, 2021 whereby learned Single Judge has declined interference on the disciplinary proceedings and on the punishment of removal from service which was upheld by the appellate authority.
Back Ground Facts-
2. In short, the relevant facts for adjudication of this matter are that the appellant was initially appointed in Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), Durgapur on 12.7.1996. On 3.4.1984, he was injured in a firing by terrorists
Union of India & Others v. Gyan Chand Chattar
M/s Glaxo Laboratories (I) Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court Meerut and Others
State of Odisha and Another v. Satish Kumar Ishwardas Gajbhiye and Others
Union of India vs. Mohd. Naseem Siddiqui
Nand Kishore Prasad vs. State of Bihar
Roop Singh Nagi vs. Punjab National Bank
Anil Kumar vs. Presiding Officer
U.P. State Brassware Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Uday Narain Pandey
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan vs. S.C. Sharma
Deepali Gundu Surwase vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya
Disciplinary decisions must be supported by unequivocal evidence; mere recovery of funds or suspicion is insufficient to substantiate allegations of misconduct.
A disciplinary enquiry must be based on evidence; mere allegations or FIR production without witness examination cannot substantiate a finding of guilt.
(1) Disciplinary Enquiry – Rules of evidence which apply to a criminal trial are distinct from those which govern a disciplinary enquiry – Acquittal of accused in a criminal case does not debar emplo....
Procedural fairness in disciplinary inquiries is paramount; mere allegations without supporting evidence or adherence to specified rules cannot justify punitive actions.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.