Back
V. KAMESWAR RAO, ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA
Ramakrishna Dutta – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to the tribunal's order. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. history and context of charges against petitioner. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 8 , 11) |
| 3. unauthorized absence from duty affects employment status and disciplinary measures. (Para 6) |
| 4. petitioner's claims and arguments against disciplinary actions. (Para 9 , 10 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 18 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 5. proper procedures must be adhered to in disciplinary actions. (Para 19) |
| 6. tribunal's findings on petitioner's absence and penalties. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41) |
| 7. legal basis for validating penalties and proceedings. (Para 46 , 49 , 50 , 55 , 56) |
| 8. the employer has a right to impose penalties for confirmed misconduct. (Para 51 , 52) |
| 9. final dismissal of the petition. (Para 57) |
JUDGMENT
V. Kameswar Rao, J. - This petition has been filed challenging the order dated May 31, 2019 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, (`Tribunal', for short) in Original Application (OA) Nos.252/2016, 532/2016, 2739/2016 and Review Application (RA) No.50/2019 in OA No.2739/2016. OA No.252/2016 was filed to set aside the order of penalty dated October 23, 2015, OA No.532/2016 was filed against the
Disciplinary actions for unauthorized absence, including penalties of reduction and dismissal, were upheld, affirming adherence to procedural rules and cautioning against claims of double jeopardy.
Rule 56 of SFCI Employee (Conduct, Discipline & Appeal) Rules, there is no provision for filing of Review Appeal by an employee.
Unauthorized absence from duty and related misconduct proved; the disciplinary process upheld as fair and not in violation of natural justice.
Judicial review in disciplinary matters is restricted; courts shall not act as appellate bodies to re-evaluate evidence of unauthorized absence or substitute the penalty imposed by a competent author....
The punishment imposed must be in accordance with the prescribed list of punishments under the relevant rules and should not deviate from the statutory provisions.
Merely stating that huge financial losses are caused to the State would not suffice unless the charges are even prima-facie supported by any credible material placed before the court.
Termination without proper procedure and documentation is disproportionate, violating legal norms on employee's rights.
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
