Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V.KAMESWAR RAO, MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
J P Gautam – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition challenges removal from service. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. details on allegations leading to charge-sheet. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. arguments against the imposed punishment. (Para 8 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. evaluation of evidence concerning misconduct. (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 5. basis for the court's conclusion on evidence. (Para 24 , 56 , 58) |
JUDGMENT :
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J.
1. The present petition has been filed challenging the Petitioner’s removal from service.
2. The Petitioner was charge-sheeted on 24.11.1998 resulting in an Enquiry Report dated 06.05.1999, which held the Petitioner guilty of both Charge No. 1 and Charge No. 2. The disciplinary authority vide order dated 24.06.1999, as modified on 15.07.1999, concurred with the Enquiry Report and imposed a punishment of reduction of salary by two levels for a period of two years and also stoppage of increment for the said period of two years.
3. The said punishment ordered by the disciplinary authority was enhanced by the appellate authority after issuing a show cause notice to ‘removal from service’, vide order dated 21.11.2000. The said enhanced punishment has been upheld by the superior authorities in further appeal a
The court quashed the enhanced penalty of removal from service, holding that the charges of misconduct were not proved, emphasizing reliability issues in witness testimonies.
The court overturned the removal of service, finding the penalty imposed was shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct, violating the principles of natural justice and the proportionality standar....
Dismissal without inquiry violates natural justice and requires satisfactory justification under CISF Rules and Article 311 of the Constitution.
The disciplinary authority's decision to remove the employee for financial misconduct was upheld, as the inquiry followed due process and the employee admitted to significant charges.
The court upheld the removal of a constable for repeated indiscipline, affirming the adherence to procedural safeguards in disciplinary proceedings.
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
