Back
V. KAMESWAR RAO, ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA
Commissioner of Police – Appellant
Versus
Ex Ct Vinod Kumar – Respondent
JUDGMENT
V. Kameswar Rao, J. (Oral)
CM APPL. 28300/2023 (for exemption)
Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 7276/2023
1. The challenge in this writ petition filed by the Commissioner of Police and its functionaries is to the order dated September 23, 2022 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (`Tribunal', for short) in Original Application No.2212/2018, whereby the Tribunal has allowed the OA filed by the respondent herein by stating in paragraph 8 as under:
"8. It is relevant to mention that all possible evidences will be placed by the prosecution and then a view was to be formed and the respondents themselves were contesting parties', which miserably failed to prove the case against the applicant in the Criminal Case (FIR No. 495/96) dated 26.05.2022. Merely a visit of an officer by submitting a report without having the original documents is not tenable in the eyes of law and secondary evidence only can be led, when the original is not traceable or missing. In the present case, the respondents have not made any effort whatsoever to trace the original document(s) from the concerned unit. In view
The court emphasized that the challenge to the dismissal order was not barred by time, and the dismissal order was set aside as it was not practicable to call the officials of the State Education Boa....
Disciplinary action under Article 311(2)(b) must be supported by robust evidence; reliance on mere presumptions about witness intimidation without conducting an inquiry contravenes natural justice pr....
Dismissal under Article 311(2)(b) invalid without cogent, objective reasons showing inquiry impracticable; FIR involvement and witness fear presumptions insufficient if criminal probe exonerates empl....
Dismissal without inquiry violates natural justice and requires satisfactory justification under CISF Rules and Article 311 of the Constitution.
Judicial review in disciplinary matters is supervisory; no interference absent procedural violation causing prejudice, delay bars relief, penalty proportionate.
The failure to supply a copy of a preliminary enquiry report can be recognized as prejudicial only if it constituted material for finding guilt or forming the opinion of the Disciplinary Authority.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that holding an inquiry is a rule while dispensing with it is an exception, and the reasons for dispensing with the inquiry must be sufficient and ....
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
