A. S. SUPEHIA, MAUNA M. BHATT
EA SINGH (EDWIN ANNETT SINGH) – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
A.S. SUPEHIA, J.
1. The present Letters Patent Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, 1865 is directed against the judgment and order dated 05.12.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge rejecting the writ petition filed by the appellant-original petitioner assailing the order dated 20.06.2002 passed by the State Government, whereby the appellant-original petitioner was compulsorily retired from the service by way of punishment, after rendering almost 37 years of service. Thus, the original petitioner was deprived of all his retiral benefits. It is noticed that during the pendency of the Letters Patent Appeal, the appellant (original petitioner) has passed away on 05.09.2020 and the appeal is represented through his legal heirs.
FACTS:
2. The petitioner joined the services as a Police Sub- Inspector (PSI) in the year 1965 and in due course, he was promoted as a Police Inspector (PI) in the year 1980 and thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Dy. S.P.) in the year 1992. He reached at the age of superannuation on 31.08.2002.
3. During the period from 18.12.1990 to 15.08.1991, when he was serving as the Police Inspector and he was
Collector Singh vs. LML Limited, Kanpur
J.A. Naiksatam vs. Prothonotary and Senior Master
Jarnail Singh vs. State of Punjab
Lav Nigam vs. Chairman and M.D. ITI
P.D. Agrawal vs. State Bank of India & Ors. AIR 2006 SC 2064
Punjab National Bank & Ors. Vs. K.K. Verma
Ranjit Singh vs. Union of India & Ors. AIR 2006 SC 3685
S.P. Malhotra Vs. Punjab National Bank
State Bank of India & Ors. vs. K.P. Narayanan Kutty
State Bank of India vs. K.P. Narayan Kutti
Union of India and Ors. vs. P. Gunasekaran
Union of India vs. Subrata Nath
Yoginath B. Bagde vs. State of Maharashtra
Yoginath D. Bagde vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. AIR 1999 SC 3374
The judgment underscores the importance of procedural fairness and adherence to natural justice in disciplinary proceedings, particularly when imposing severe penalties.
Disciplinary authorities must provide reasons for disagreeing with enquiry officer findings and issue a second show cause notice before imposing punishment, adhering to principles of natural justice.
Disciplinary authority's findings must be based on evidence; failure to adhere to natural justice principles renders proceedings void.
The disciplinary authority is not bound to accept the inquiry officer's findings and must ensure adherence to procedural rules in conducting inquiries, even amid ongoing criminal proceedings.
Disciplinary actions must adhere to principles of natural justice, ensuring charges are clear and the accused gets a fair opportunity to defend against allegations.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.