Back
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI
PRANJAL DAS S/O LATE UMA RAM DAS – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.
1. The enhancement of the penalty in a disciplinary proceeding vide an order dated 15.01.2008 is the subject matter of challenge in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The challenge is based on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction as well as violation of the principles of natural justice.
2. As per the facts projected, the petitioner was serving at the relevant point of time as a Constable G.D. in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF). While he was posted at the Khatkhati Range in the district of Karbi Anglong, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him. The same was based on an FIR lodged against him which was registered as Jorhat P.S. Case No. 167/2007 under sections 457/376/511 of the Indian Penal Code. It is however the case of the petitioner that the said FIR was lodged due to some misconception and the same was resolved by a statement of the alleged victim whereby the petitioner was absolved of the allegations. The aforesaid police case had culminated in submission of a Final Report which was accepted by the learned Court. However, the departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner which ha
The Court affirmed that disciplinary authorities can enhance penalties without an appeal under Rule 29(d) of the CRPF Act, emphasizing the need for discipline in paramilitary forces.
Disciplinary authority's discretion under CISF Rules allows for minor penalties without mandatory inquiry, provided no gross illegality or violation of natural justice occurs.
The imposition of a penalty not prescribed under statutory rules is invalid, and cumulative penalties are not permissible under the Central Reserve Police Force Rules.
The Court affirmed that a show cause notice can initiate disciplinary proceedings if it meets the procedural requirements outlined in the relevant rules.
The acquittal in a criminal case does not invalidate disciplinary proceedings, which require a lower standard of proof, and the Limitation Act does not apply to such proceedings.
Judicial review in disciplinary proceedings is limited; High Courts cannot interfere with findings or penalties unless they are manifestly illegal or shockingly disproportionate.
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
