Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
TAPABRATA CHAKRABORTY, PARTHA SARATHI CHATTERJEE
Pradip Kumar Modak – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.
1. The disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the appellant by a charge sheet dated 10.10.2013. The sole charge was that during posting at the New Delhi Metro Station on 01.10.2013 at about 09.59 hours he had fought with the HC/GD-AC Coy which caused breach of peace and tarnished the image of the Force and showed a grave negligence towards duty, indiscipline and misconduct. The appellant replied to the chargesheet and an enquiry was conducted under Rule 36 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the CISF Rules). In the midst thereof, he was suspended vide memo dated 01.10.2013. He duly participated in the enquiry and upon considering the deposition of four prosecution witnesses and CCTV footage, the enquiry officer (hereinafter referred to as EO) submitted a report arriving at a finding that the charge against the appellant stands proved. Thereafter he filed a reply to the said enquiry report and after considering the same, the disciplinary authority (hereinafter referred to as DA) by an order dated 28.03.2014 imposed the punishment of removable from service. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant preferre
Disciplinary charges must be clear; prior conduct can be included for context in proceedings. Standards of proof rely on 'preponderance of probability'; violation of natural justice must cause seriou....
Removal from service upheld for discreditable conduct by disciplined force member captured on viral video/CCTV; inquiry valid without complainant; courts limit review, deferring to authority where pr....
Disciplinary proceedings must adhere to the principles of natural justice, including supplying relevant documents, but if no prejudice is established, the proceedings may still be upheld.
Disciplinary proceedings must adhere to principles of natural justice, including providing access to relevant evidence. Failure to follow these may invalidate the proceedings.
Disciplinary proceedings must follow the principles of natural justice, including the right to evidence, but non-supply of evidence does not invalidate proceedings if the accused received a fair chan....
Limited scope of interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in departmental disciplinary proceedings.
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
