Back
MANISH CHOUDHURY
Prem Kumar Singh, S/o Late Yogindar Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Assam represented by the Commissioner Secretary to the Government of Assam, Home and Political Department – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Manish Choudhury, J.
Invoking the extra-ordinary and discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has instituted the instant writ petition to assail an Order dated 30.11.2023 passed by the respondent no. 5 in the capacity of the Disciplinary Authority/Appointing Authority, whereby, the petitioner who was serving as an Unarmed Branch Constable [UBC] in the Assam Police, has been removed from service w.e.f. 30.11.2023 by imposing the major penalty of removal in a disciplinary proceeding, Departmental Proceeding no. 05 of 2023. The impugned Order of penalty dated 30.11.2023 has further stipulated that the period of suspension of the petitioner w.e.f. 17.08.2023 to 09.10.2023 is to be treated as dies-non.
2. The background facts leading to passing of the impugned Order of penalty dated 30.11.2023 can be stated, in brief, at first.
2.1. The petitioner has stated that he joined the service in the year 1994 as a Constable at 11th Battalion of Assam Police at Dergaon and accordingly, he was sent for completing, the mandatory training course. After completion of the training course, the petitioner joined the Assam Police as a
The court upheld the removal of a police constable for intoxication during duty, emphasizing the importance of discipline in law enforcement and the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary m....
The High Court does not act as an appellate authority in disciplinary matters and will not interfere with the quantum of punishment unless it is shocking to the conscience.
Disciplinary authorities have the exclusive jurisdiction to impose penalties for proven misconduct, and courts should not interfere unless findings are irrational or arbitrary.
Habitual absenteeism in a disciplined force justifies dismissal, and previous misconduct can be considered in determining penalties.
The doctrine of proportionality in administrative law allows judicial review of disciplinary actions, ensuring that penalties are not grossly disproportionate to the misconduct.
The main legal point established in the given judgment is the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary inquiries and the principles of proportionality and the Wednesbury rule.
Judicial review of disciplinary actions emphasizes fairness of the inquiry and proportionality of punishment, allowing modification from removal to compulsory retirement when circumstances warrant.
Habitual absenteeism in a disciplined force can justify the imposition of a major penalty like dismissal from service, and such penalty may not be considered disproportionate to the allegations.
The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to principles of natural justice in disciplinary inquiries, asserting that findings must be supported by adequate evidence and fair procedures.
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
