Back
RAMESH SINHA, NARESH KUMAR CHANDRAVANSHI
Govind Sahu S/o Shri Harishankar Sahu – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Home – Respondent
ORDER :
Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, J.
1. Since both the above appeals arise out of same order, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. Heard Mr. A.K. Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant Govind Sahu in WA No. 106/2022, Mr. C.K. Kesharwani, learned counsel for appellant Ravindra Singh Goutam in WA No. 170/2022 and Mr. Gagan Tiwari, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent/State.
3. The present intra Court appeals have been filed against the order dated 13-10-2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No.267/2012 (Ravindra Singh Goutam and anr. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others), whereby the writ petition filed by the appellants has been dismissed.
4. Facts of the case as projected in the writ petition are that the appellants Ravindra Singh and Govind Kumar Sahu were appointed in police department as Constable in the years 2009. It is alleged that on 11. 04.2010 at 10.00 P.M., the appellants booked two rooms for stay with two girls in the Mayank Hotel, Raipur and on information received by the Station House Officer, Police Station Gol Bazar that two persons are staying at Mayank Hotel by presenting themselves as Crime Branch
The punishment imposed in a disciplinary proceeding should not shock the conscience of the court and should be proportionate to the proven charge.
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 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 that the scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited, and the court should not substitute its own findings for those of the discipl....
In departmental proceedings, the standard of proof is based on the preponderance of probabilities, and the court will not interfere with the disciplinary authority's findings unless there is a clear ....
Judicial review in disciplinary proceedings limited to procedural fairness and natural justice; non-statutory vigilance manual violations do not vitiate inquiry without proven prejudice; no re-apprec....
The main legal point established in the given judgment is the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary inquiries and the principles of proportionality and the Wednesbury rule.
Judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited; courts cannot reassess evidence or interfere unless findings are arbitrary or unsupported by evidence.
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
