Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
SURESH KUMAR KAIT, NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
Brij Bhushan – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of disciplinary inquiry against petitioner (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. petitioner's argument on delays in inquiry (Para 4) |
| 3. court's observations on notice and responses (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. disposition of petition based on respondent's commitment (Para 7) |
1. The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents to pass a final order in the inquiry initiated against him.
2. The petitioner claims to have been appointed as a Sub-Inspector/Executive in the Central Industrial Security Forces (CISF) on 16.09.1999; appointed/promoted as an Assistant Commandant through Limited Departmental Competitive Examination on 24.07.2008; again promoted to the rank of Deputy Commandant on 03.04.2014 and holding the post of Commandant/Local Rank on 10.02.2017.
3. The petitioner was served with a Charge Memorandum No.400 dated 11.09.2020 under Rule 14 of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 and a departmental enquiry was conducted. The grievance of petitioner is that despite he has been an honest and diligent employee, he has been made to face baseless disciplinary action by the respondents with the mala fide intention to harass him. It ha
Disciplinary authorities must adhere to procedural timelines in inquiries to ensure fairness and due process.
Sufficient and effective opportunity should be granted to the delinquent in the domestic enquiry, especially when there is contemplation to impose a major punishment.
The Court upheld the penalty of removal from service based on the petitioner's admission of charges, failure to submit written explanations, and the consideration of the petitioner's previous conduct....
Disciplinary authority's decision upheld due to adherence to procedural fairness and proportionality of punishment to misconduct.
The Disciplinary Authority may independently impose penalties based on a preponderance of evidence, even if the Enquiry Officer finds the accused innocent, provided proper procedures are followed.
The court established that the authority to appoint an inquiry officer in disciplinary proceedings lies with the disciplinary authority as defined in the CISF Rules, and that mere allegations of bias....
The disciplinary authority must make a timely decision, and the petitioner has the right to challenge the decision if adverse.
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
