Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
RAJIV SHAKDHER, JASMEET SINGH
Sanjeev Ghei – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. hearing and consent for final disposal. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. contesting withdrawal of charge memo. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. aggrieved by continuation of proceedings. (Para 8) |
| 4. apprehension regarding charge memo proceedings. (Para 9) |
| 5. tribunal's appreciation of relief sought. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 6. disposal of petition and closure of applications. (Para 12 , 13) |
JUDGMENT
[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]
Rajiv Shakdher, J. (ORAL):
CM APPL. 14775/2022
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 4968/2022
CM APPL 14774/2022 [Application filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking interim relief]
CM APPL. 14776/2022 [Application filed on behalf of the petitioner for filing additional documents]
2. Issue notice.
3. Ms Nidhi Raman accepts notice on behalf of respondent nos.1 and 2
3.1. In view of the directions that we intend to pass, notice need not issue to respondent no.3.
4. With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal, at this stage itself.
5. This writ petition is directed against an interlocutory order dated 23.02.2022, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal [in short "Tribunal"] in OA
The court emphasized the need for a thorough judicial review of the Tribunal's order regarding disciplinary proceedings, asserting that it must assess the implications of a withdrawn charge memo.
The court emphasized the importance of appreciating the relief sought by the petitioner and directed the Tribunal to hear arguments afresh.
Disciplinary proceedings may continue only with proper justification, even after compulsory retirement, pending Tribunal's assessment of the circumstances.
The Tribunal has authority to issue interim orders directing benefits during unresolved proceedings, contingent on the merit of the original application.
The withdrawal of a charge memo does not necessarily nullify the proceedings, and pendency of disciplinary proceedings can be a valid reason for denying promotion.
Belated fresh charge memo superseding earlier one without reasons for delay, issued pre-retirement for same misconduct, is impermissible and quashable.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that once disciplinary proceedings are dropped without giving any reason, a proceeding cannot be re-initiated, as per the circular dated 05.07.1979....
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
