Back
SURESH KUMAR KAIT, NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
Rajesh Kumar P V – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Neena Bansal Krishna, J.
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue Writ of Certiorari to set aside the Chargesheet dated 19.08.2017, Order of Sentence of "Severe Reprimand" dated 21.08.2017, and also issue Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent No. 1 to notionally promote him to the Rank of AC/Elect. against the vacancy year 2016-17 or 2017-18 or 2018-19 along with all consequential benefits and seniority.
2. The facts in brief as narrated in the present petition are that the petitioner is presently working as Inspector/Junior Engineer (Electrical) with the Border Security Force (hereinafter referred to as "BSF") and is currently posted at STS-BSF, Tigri, New Delhi. While working as Junior Engineer, a Summary Trial was initiated against him by DIG, Barmar and he was served with Chargesheet dated 14.10.2016 and was charged with two charges under Border Security Force Act 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1968"), namely: Section 35(a) for knowingly making a false statement in a document signed by him; and Section 40 for committing an omission prejudicial to good order and discipline of the force.
3.
The principle of double jeopardy and the inadmissibility of severe reprimand as a basis for denying promotion were established in the judgment.
Departmental proceedings must adhere to principles of natural justice, and acquittal in criminal cases does not preclude disciplinary action but requires proper evidence examination.
The court affirmed the principle that judicial review of administrative actions in disciplinary processes is limited to procedural correctness, not evidential review, and mandated reconsideration of ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for following the prescribed procedure, including issuing a show cause notice and conducting a departmental enquiry, before imposin....
The court emphasized the importance of ensuring fair and legal disciplinary proceedings and held that disciplinary actions must be based on valid grounds and not be initiated for collateral purposes.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that 'displeasure' is not a penalty enlisted in Rule 11 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, and cannot be used to deny promotion.
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
