Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
V.KAMESWAR RAO
Ramakant Dixit – Appellant
Versus
Security Printing and Minting Corporation of India Limited – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to disciplinary action advice (Para 2 , 4 , 6) |
| 2. details of procurement and recommendations (Para 3 , 5 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. reconsideration of prior advice and timeline (Para 9 , 10 , 12) |
| 4. legal principles on advice and discretion (Para 11 , 13 , 19) |
| 5. response to delay in advice reconsideration (Para 18 , 20 , 21) |
| 6. cvc's guideline on reconsiderations (Para 25 , 27 , 28) |
| 7. court's dismissal of the petition (Para 36 , 39) |
JUDGMENT
V. Kameswar Rao, J. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:
"In the premises of the above, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble High Court may be pleased:-
(i) To issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to produce the entire record pertaining to the reconsidered advice for initiation of disciplinary action against the petitioner, after the original advice for closing the matter including the File Reference No. SPMCIL/VIZ/72/18 and to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the reconsidered eve advice dated 17.12.2020 for initiation of disciplinary action against the petitioner.
(ii) To issue further writ of certiorari quashing and setting aside the Order No. SPMCIL/VIG/72/18(pt)/
The advice of the Central Vigilance Commission is not binding on disciplinary authorities, and premature interventions in disciplinary processes without a charge-sheet lack a valid cause of action.
The CVC's advice is not binding on the disciplinary authority, and no decision had been made to issue a chargesheet to the petitioner at the time of filing the petition.
Disciplinary authorities must act independently, and reliance on external recommendations can violate principles of natural justice, leading to invalid proceedings.
Disciplinary proceedings initiated post-CBI investigation adhered to due process, and courts cannot re-evaluate evidence unless findings are perverse; the burden of proof lies on the petitioner to de....
(1) Quantum of punishment should be commensurate with gravity of lapses.(2) Anyone can make mistakes. Consequences of mistakes should not be unduly harsh.
The disciplinary authority must independently assess penalties without undue influence from external advice, ensuring adherence to principles of natural justice.
Point of Law : It would not be safe to rely on the examination-in-chief recorded which was not subjected to cross examination before the summon was made.
Point of Law : Service – Termination of service - Termination without an inquiry / show cause notice is stigmatic in nature is concerned, the said judgments have no applicability in the facts of this....
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
