Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
AJAY KUMAR GUPTA
Ellumalai R. – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Judgment :
Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.
1. Being aggrieved with the punishment awarded by the Disciplinary Authority for penalty of “Pay Fine Equivalent to Two Days” and, subsequently, rejection of his appeal and revision by the Appellate Authority, the petitioner prays for relief, inter alia, as follows:--
“a) A Writ in the nature of Mandamus quashing and setting aside Final Order being No. CISF/C Coy/ISP(B)C COY/Minor/2021- 17 dated 29.01.2021, Appellate Order being No. 15099/CISF/ISP(B)/No/UR-37/ER/ 2021/2098 dated 12.04.2021 and revisional order being No. 15099/CISF/ISP(B)/No/ Revision/UR-37/E.R/2021/7695 dated 20.12.2021 passed by Respondents No. 4, 3 and 2 respectively, being improper and illegal;.
b) A Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents concerned to restore the two days pay-fine imposed upon the petitioner and remove the said entry from his service records as a consequence of setting aside of his punishments;
c) A writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents, their men, agents and all of them to grant promotion to the petitioner by ignoring the adverse entry of the two-day pay fine in his service record, as imposed on him by the disciplinary authority,
The judgment emphasizes the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings, the need for evidence to reasonably support the conclusion of guilt, and the requirement for the penalty to b....
Disciplinary authority's judgment on misconduct and punishment is primarily upheld unless shockingly disproportionate.
The court emphasized the importance of procedural compliance in disciplinary proceedings and upheld the principle of proportionality in imposing punishment.
The penalty imposed for negligence in duty was upheld as proportionate and justified, emphasizing the importance of discipline in a disciplined force.
The proportionality of punishment in disciplinary proceedings and the consideration of previous misconduct in determining the appropriate punishment.
The court upheld the disciplinary penalty on the petitioner for gross negligence while on duty, emphasizing the significance of maintaining strict discipline in security forces.
The nature of misconduct proved by the Disciplinary Authority is grave in nature and the petitioner acted unbecoming of an Armed Force Personnel, while performing the patrolling duty.
Disciplinary actions in armed forces must align with established judicial principles of proportionality; actions substantiated through evidence uphold dismissals for habitual misconduct.
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
