Back
V. KAMESWAR RAO, ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA
K. L. Parashar – Appellant
Versus
Delhi Development Authority – Respondent
JUDGMENT
V. Kameswar Rao, J. (Oral)
1. The challenge in this petition is to order dated December 24, 2022 passed in RA 31/2020 and order dated September 14, 2018 passed in OA 4206/2014, whereby the Central Administrative Tribunal (`Tribunal', for short) has dismissed the Original Application as well as the Review Application filed by the petitioner herein.
2. The only submission made by Mr. Ankur Chhibber, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that OA wherein the impugned order has been passed is the second round of litigation, the earlier one being OA 18/2010 which was decided on October 17, 2012, whereby the Tribunal while dismissing the OA has in terms of paragraph 8 has directed as under:
"We are of the opinion that the above observations have not been taken into consideration by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority. We, therefore, wish to remand the matter back to the appellate authority to consider the matter again in the light of the facts put up by the Vigilance Decision and also the applicant in his reply and defence that many of the important files were not routed through him. No malafide or motive has also been proved against the applicant. In
The court emphasized the importance of providing a reasoned and factual finding when dismissing a petition, and the need for expeditious consideration of the Original Application by the Tribunal.
The court has the power of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings and can set aside orders if they are not in accordance with the law.
Disciplinary proceedings must not be prematurely set aside without conclusive evidence of misconduct, ensuring fairness in administrative processes.
The limited scope of judicial scrutiny in cases of departmental inquiries, where the judicial review is confined to correcting errors of law or procedural error resulting in manifest miscarriage of j....
The punishment imposed in disciplinary proceedings must be proportionate to the charges levelled against the employee, and the court's review is limited to ensuring procedural fairness and proportion....
The court emphasized the importance of a discussion on merits in the adjudication of the matter and the need for both sides to have the opportunity to present their respective stands before the Tribu....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to address the petitioner's claim regarding the disciplinary authority and the possibility of victimization, and the court's author....
The Tribunal's dismissal of an application based solely on limitation, without addressing substantive legal claims, constitutes a reversible error warranting judicial intervention.
Review petitions should demonstrate an apparent error on the face of the order being challenged, rather than challenging the order on its merits.
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
