Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, C.J., TEJAS KARIA
Punjab National Bank – Appellant
Versus
C.J. Arora – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, C.J.
CHALLENGE
1. This letter patent appeal instituted under Clause X of the Letter Patent seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 09.12.2024 passed by learned Single Judge whereby W.P.(C) No.6696/2003 filed by the respondent, was allowed, and the charge-sheet along with the Inquiry Report dated 14.12.1995, punishment order of dismissal from service dated 17.08.1996, the order of the Appellate Authority dated 26.07.2002 dismissing the appeal against the order of punishment, and the order dated 08.04.2003 passed by Reviewing Authority dismissing the review, has been quashed.
2. Learned Single Judge has further held that the respondent shall be entitled to notional reinstatement from the date of the order of penalty till 30.04.2011 when he retired on attaining the age of superannuation. Further directions were also issued by learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment and order that pay and allowances of the respondent shall be calculated for the period of notional reinstatement for the purposes of retiral benefits on this basis, and he shall accordingly be paid his pension from 30.04.2011 along with arrears.
FACTS
3. Heard the learned Senior
The disciplinary authority must provide cogent reasons for ordering a de novo inquiry; failure in this regard vitiates subsequent penalties, while waiver through participation in inquiry bars later c....
A de novo inquiry is permissible under Rule 26(1) of the CDA Rules when substantial evidence or procedural defects existed in the prior inquiry, ensuring compliance with principles of natural justice....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that when a certain act is required to be done in a certain way, it should be done in that way only and not in any other manner. The failure to com....
The Disciplinary Authority can order further enquiry only if serious defects exist in the initial enquiry; it cannot do so after a finding of exoneration.
Disciplinary authority cannot order de novo inquiry on same charges after first inquiry report without following Rule 9 procedure of remitting for further inquiry or providing report with disagreemen....
Disciplinary inquiries must provide reasoned findings; failure to do so renders the inquiry invalid and the resulting penalties unsustainable.
The Disciplinary Authority cannot order denovo inquiry under Rule 14 and 15 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, unless there has been no proper inquiry due to serious defects or unavailability of important wit....
The disciplinary authority can remit the case for further enquiry, but a de-novo enquiry is not warranted unless there is a patent irregularity or illegality in the earlier enquiry report.
Disciplinary Authority cannot order de-novo inquiry under CCS (CCA) Rules upon dissatisfaction with Inquiry Officer's report; must proceed per Rule 15 by providing disagreement reasons or directing f....
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
