Back
RAJANI DUBEY
Ram Manohar S/o Late Mangal – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
ORDER :
1. The petitioner has preferred the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the orders dated 16.05.2001 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No. 2, 19.11.2000 (Annexure P/2) passed by respondent No. 3 & 18.06.1999 (Annexure P/3) passed by respondent No. 4 whereby the major punishment was imposed upon the petitioner.
2. Brief facts of the case as projected by the petitioner, are that the petitioner was posted as Constable in Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) Unit BALCO Korba. On 31.12.1998, petitioner along with Shri A.N. Jaidi was deployed for checking of all the incoming/outgoing material/vehicle at the gate. During checking, one vehicle bearing No. MIL-6205 loaded with material belonging to M/s Richu Industries (Contractor) was loaded. At the time of loading of the vehicle, petitioner checked the material and subsequently, first shift was over. Immediately, the BALCO Vigilance team standing outside the gate, seized the said vehicle outside the gate by challenging of excess loaded material thereon.
3. For this lapse, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner by the disciplinary authority and issued a Charge Memo d
The duty of the constable to protect plant properties and the appellate authority's consideration of the gravity of the charges in enhancing the penalty.
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.
Judicial review under Article 226 does not involve reappraising evidence or substituting disciplinary authority's findings unless punishment shocks conscience.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that disciplinary orders must comply with the principles and provisions of the applicable rules and regulations, including the requirement for vali....
Disciplinary penalties must be proportionate to the misconduct, considering the individual's service history and circumstances surrounding the case.
Punishment of dismissal of service should be awarded for gravest act of misconduct.
Repetition of a charge for which a person has already been punished is in violation of Section 18 of the Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968, and renders the final order of punishment unsusta....
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
