Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, Mini Pushkarna, JJ.
Ex Insp Sarjit Singh – Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 2590 of 2023
Decided On : 01-03-2023
Exemption - Writ Petition - The court allowed the exemption subject to all just exceptions and disposed of the application.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought various reliefs including bringing on record the copy of departmental enquiry, quashing dismissal orders, reinstatement in service, and release of retirement benefits.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the respondent to take a final decision on the appeal filed by the petitioner within two weeks and communicate the decision to the petitioner. The petitioner was also informed of the option to challenge the decision before the appropriate forum.
Issues: The issues involved the petitioner's appeal against dismissal orders and the request for reinstatement and release of retirement benefits.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the need for the respondent to take a final decision on the petitioner's appeal and communicate it within a specified timeframe.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the petition, directing the respondent to decide on the appeal and communicate the decision to the petitioner, while also allowing the petitioner the option to challenge the decision before the appropriate forum.
JUDGMENT (Oral)
CM APPL. 9949/2023 (Exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application is disposed of.
W.P.(C) 2590/2023
3. Vide the present petition, the petitioner is seeking following reliefs:
"a.) To pass directions to the Respondents to bring on record the copy of departmental enquiry and other such necessary relevant document or record for adjudication of the present petition;
b.) To quash and set-aside dismissal order(s) dated 12.07.2021 and 16.11.2022 passed by the Respondents;
c.) To pass directions to the Respondents for re-instatement of the Petitioner in service, w.e.f. 12.07.2021, along with arrears of pay and allowances for the time duration;
d.) Alternatively, to mitigate the sentence of the Petitioner from dismissal to any less severe punishment and pass directions to the Respondents to release the retirement and other such pension benefits of the Petitioner, w.e.f., 12.07.2021"
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed an appeal on 23.12.2022 under Rule 28 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 before the respondent No. 2 against the Dismissal Order dated 12.07.2021 passed by the respondents, however, the same has not yet been decided by the respondent No. 2/Director General, Central Reserve Police Force.
5. Accordingly, we hereby dispose of the present petition directing the respondent No. 2 to take a final decision on the appeal filed by the petitioner with a reasoned order within two weeks from today. The decision, so taken, shall be communicated to the petitioner in writing within one week thereafter.
6. Needless to state, if the petitioner is still aggrieved by the decision taken by the respondent No. 2, he may challenge the same before the appropriate forum.
7. The present petition is disposed of.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the respondent to take a final decision on the petitioner's appeal within a specified timeframe.
Disproportionate punishment for unauthorized absence under the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949
The court has the discretion to dispose of a petition by allowing the petitioner to file a revision petition and directing the respondents to consider the mental condition of the petitioner and pass ....
The main legal point established is that an employee is entitled to pension and post-retiral benefits as per the initial order of compulsory retirement, and subsequent amendments denying such benefit....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court will dispose of a petition seeking a Writ of Mandamus if the issue has already been decided and granted by the relevant authority, a....
The punishment imposed must be proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct, and the principles of natural justice and statutory regulations prescribing the mode of enquiry must be followed.
Disciplinary dismissal for serious unauthorized absence upheld as proper under CRPF Act, affirming authority in service conduct over mere appeal of punishment severity.
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
