Back
VIJAY BISHNOI, N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR
Union of India, Represented by the Secretary, New Delhi – Appellant
Versus
MES No. 439169 Sri Vinod Kumar Gupta S/o Shri Devata Deen Gupta – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
VIJAY BISHNOI, C.J.
1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 22.04.2021 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter to be referred as ‘CAT’) Guwahati Bench in O.A. No. 216/2020 whereby the CAT allowed the application filed on behalf of the sole respondent herein and set aside the Memorandum of Charges dated 12.02.2018 issued by the petitioners in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the respondent.
2. The brief facts, sans the details, are that the sole respondent was appointed on 05.11.2005 in the Military Engineer Services and initially he was posted as Assistant Director, Group ‘A’ Civilian Officer in the office of the Chief Engineer, Lucknow Zone under the Ministry of Defence, Government of India. After completion of his probation period on 04.11.2007, his service was confirmed w.e.f. 05.11.2007. He worked as AGE B/R (Project) under GE Dehu Road during the period from 23.05.2006 to 31.12.2009. The respondent was firstly promoted as Executive Engineer on 22.10.2010 and he was given second promotion w.e.f. 01.12.2015 as Executive Engineer (Non-Functional Selection Grade).
However, while he was functioning as AGE
Disciplinary proceedings cannot be quashed solely on the ground of delay; the severity of allegations must also be considered.
Disciplinary proceedings against quasi-judicial officers must be based on objective evidence, and undue delay in initiation can invalidate such actions.
Unexplained delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings and vague charges can lead to quashing of the charge sheet, as it would be unfair and cause prejudice to the accused.
The delay in disciplinary proceedings must be properly explained by the Department, and in the absence of a valid and acceptable explanation, the charges can be quashed based on the nature of the cas....
Delay in departmental proceedings should be considered in light of the gravity of the charges involved, and the definition of 'grave misconduct' is not limited to specific acts mentioned in the rules....
Judicial officers can face disciplinary action for misconduct, but not for mere errors in judgment, emphasizing the need for judicial independence.
Merely stating that huge financial losses are caused to the State would not suffice unless the charges are even prima-facie supported by any credible material placed before the court.
Judicial review of disciplinary charge memos is limited; premature quashing is improper if charges are supported by evidence, requiring internal resolutions first.
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
