Back
KAUSHIK GOSWAMI
Annet Kumar, S/O- Dalveer Singh – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India Through The Secy. , Ministry Of Home Affairs, New Delhi – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Kaushik Goswami, J.
Heard Mr. R. Mazumder, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mrs. A. Gayan, learned CGC appearing for the respondents.
2. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the enquiry report dated 02.03.2015 and the order dated 30.03.2014 passed by the Commandant 48 Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force, by which, the petitioner had been removed from service.
3. The facts of the case are that the petitioner joined the service of Central Reserve Police Force as a Constable/General Duty in the year 2011 and he had availed earned leave w.e.f. 20.06.2014 to 20.07.2014. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the petitioner applied for extension of his leave on medical ground and that on 24.07.2014, he was informed that the said request has been rejected. Accordingly, on 26.07.2014, the petitioner proceeded to Dhubri to join his duty by travelling in the North East Express train. However, while he was travelling in the said train on 27.07.2014, the Government Railway Police, Fatehpur arrested him along with another person on the basis of an FIR lodged by a co-passenger to the effect that the p
Charges not substantiated under the Central Reserve Police Force Act cannot justify removal from service, especially when the individual is acquitted in a related criminal case.
The court overturned the removal of service, finding the penalty imposed was shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct, violating the principles of natural justice and the proportionality standar....
The punishment imposed must be proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct, and the principles of natural justice and statutory regulations prescribing the mode of enquiry must be followed.
Dismissal from service can be imposed under Section 11(1) of the Act 1949 for proven misconduct, regardless of criminal acquittal.
The court emphasized the importance of maintaining discipline in an armed force and upheld the disciplinary authority's decision based on the evidence presented during the proceedings.
(1) It is disciplinary authority, or appellate authority in appeal, which is to decide nature of punishment to be given to delinquent employee – Keeping in view seriousness of misconduct committed by....
Disciplinary proceedings must adhere to principles of natural justice, and penalties require clear justification; absence without leave does not equate to desertion without intent to abandon service.
Acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically lead to exoneration from departmental disciplinary proceedings, and the nature of the criminal charges and mitigating factors should be considered ....
Dismissal without a proper inquiry under Article 311 (2) (b) deemed arbitrary and illegal, requiring substantial justification beyond mere allegations.
A disciplinary authority is empowered to impose dismissal under Section 11 of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949, and past conduct can be considered in determining the penalty for indisciplin....
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
