Back
SUMAN SHYAM
NARESH KUMAR UPADHYAYA – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, NEW DELHI – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SUMAN SHYAM, J.
1. Heard Mr. D. Bora, learned counsel appearing in this case in place of Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned Sr. counsel, who has argued the matter with the permission of this Court. Also heard Ms. B. Devi, learned counsel appearing in place of Mr. S.P. Choudhury, learned CGC for all the respondents.
2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the legality and validity of the order dated 19-09-2014 issued by the Director General, Border Roads (DGBR), i.e. respondent No. 2 herein imposing the penalty of Rs. 1,84,907/- upon the petitioner on the ground of alleged misappropriation of Government Stores. The writ petitioner has also assailed the memorandum dated 14-01-2015, containing article of charges, served upon him with a view to initiate a departmental proceeding against the petitioner on the ground stated in the writ petition. From the facts projected in the writ petition, it appears that the basic case of the writ petitioner is that the allegation of misappropriation of Government Stores is based on the assumption of deliberate manipulation and tampering of records by GS No. 188295W Store Supervisor Roshan Kumar, facilitating such irregular act
The court emphasized the necessity of procedural fairness and the requirement of a factual basis for disciplinary actions, particularly when exonerating evidence exists.
The failure to conduct a proper inquiry in disciplinary proceedings violates principles of natural justice, leading to invalidation of dismissal orders.
Disciplinary actions require proof on the preponderance of probabilities; mere recovery of currency notes does not establish misconduct without evidence of demand or acceptance.
The court emphasized that it would be unjust, unfair, and oppressive to allow the findings in the departmental proceedings to stand when the case against the petitioner could not be established in a ....
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.
in the absence of any evidence that someone has planted the money to trap the petitioner of serious charges against him, the charges have been held to be proved.
The disciplinary authority's findings were upheld, affirming that the process followed was fair and the penalties imposed were justified based on proven misconduct.
The inquiry proceedings must adhere to the principles of natural justice, including the requirement to lead oral evidence and conduct a fair inquiry.
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
