Back
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI
Pulin Das, S/o. Lt. Niranjan Das – Appellant
Versus
State of Assam, Rep. by its Comm. and Secy. to the Govt. of Assam, Deptt. of Handloom Textile and Sericulture, Dispur – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Sanjay Kumar Medhi, J.
The instant petition has been filed challenging an order of removal from service dated 30.10.2015 after a disciplinary proceeding. The grounds of challenge, amongst others, are gross violation of the procedural laid down in law as well as violation of the principles of natural justice.
2. As per the facts projected, the petitioner was serving as the Assistant Director of the Handloom and Textile. Contemplating a departmental proceeding, he was placed under suspension vide an order dated 25.09.2003 which was followed by a show-cause notice dated 27.10.2003 wherein there were 2 nos. of charges. The first charge, in brief was insubordination as the petitioner had written directly to the Central Government for funds and the second charge is with regard to commission of forgery regarding a meeting of the State Level Project Committee. In response to the aforesaid show-cause notice, the petitioner had submitted reply on 02.11.2003. According to the petitioner, no departmental proceeding was drawn up thereafter. After a gap of almost two years, on 18.06.2005, another show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner containing 4 nos. of charges. As per the firs
The Court emphasized the necessity of adhering to procedural fairness in disciplinary proceedings, highlighting that failure to do so can invalidate removal orders.
A major penalty cannot be imposed without following procedural requirements, including providing an opportunity for defense, as per the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules.
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.
Disciplinary proceedings vitiate if an inquiry is conducted without serving proper notice to the delinquent, denying the right to cross-examine witnesses and failing to furnish a copy of the inquiry ....
The court emphasized that disciplinary actions must obey principles of natural justice, including evidence for charges and payment of subsistence allowance during suspension; non-compliance voids san....
An employee cannot successfully challenge disciplinary action due to non-supply of inquiry report unless they demonstrate actual prejudice, particularly when alternative remedies are available.
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
