Back
VIJAY BISHNOI, KARDAK ETE
Union of India – Appellant
Versus
Biraj Borthakur, S/o. Late Dimbeswar Borthakur – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Kardak Ete, J.
By filing this writ petition, the petitioners have assailed the order dated 06.03.2019 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) Guwahati in O.A. No.045/00298/2016, whereby the Original Application filed by the respondent, namely- Sri Biraj Borthakur, has been allowed and the penalty imposed vide order dated 12.02.2016 against the respondent has been set aside.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent was appointed as a Sub-Inspector (Pharmacist) a combatised non-gazetted post in SSB in the year 1984. Thereafter, he was appointed as a Circle Organiser (a civilian Gazetted post), the post which he had joined on 01.10.1991 and was promoted to the post of Special Area Organizer (in short ‘SAO’) and posted at Gangtok, Sikkim till September, 2008. Thereafter he was transferred to Bahraich in the State of Uttar Pradesh and then posted to the State of Arunachal Pradesh. During the service of the respondent as SAO at Gangtok, Sikkim, a Court of Enquiry was ordered by the Deputy Inspector of General, SHQ, Ranidanga, vide dated 21.01.2009. After the Court of Enquiry, it was, prima facie, found the involvement of the three officers/offici
Grant of reinstatement - Court will not ordinarily interfere in the punishment imposed in the disciplinary proceedings to substitute its own conclusion on penalty except where the punishment imposed ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of interference in disciplinary proceedings, emphasizing the need for evidence-based findings and the principles of proportionali....
Financial upgradations do not change disciplinary authority; limited judicial review upholds dismissal for admitted forgery and misappropriation in disciplinary proceedings.
Disciplinary proceedings are invalid if based on prejudicial reliance on undisclosed inquiry reports and if initiated by an incompetent authority, infringing principles of justice.
The court emphasized that it would not sit in appeal over the findings of the Departmental Authority and would not re-appreciate the evidence which has come before the Departmental Authority. The cou....
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
