Back
KAUSHIK GOSWAMI
Johnny Dkhar – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT & ORDER :
Kaushik Goswami, J.
1. Heard Mr. R. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Chakraborty, learned CGC for the respondents.
2. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing inter-alia, the actions of the respondent authority to initiate de-novo departmental proceedings against the petitioner which has been conveyed by letter dated 04.11.2015 (Annexure-F), order dated 26.12.2015 (Annexure-G), by which the respondent authority appointed an Enquiry Officer to conduct the said enquiry into the charges developed against the petitioner and the Enquiry Notice dated 07.02.2016 (Annexure-A).
3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner joined the CISF as Constable/GD on 15.01.1994 and accordingly, was discharging his duties.
4. On 06.07.2011, while the petitioner was returning from Calcutta, after attending his official training, to his present unit at Jorhat, the petitioner was robbed in the station. The petitioner was also administered some medicines. On somehow reaching his parent unit at Jorhat, the petitioner was taken to Jorhat Civil Hospital wherefrom he was referred to Psychiatrist for further examination
The court ruled that a de-novo enquiry cannot be initiated based on a previously quashed charge-sheet, necessitating a fresh charge-sheet for any new proceedings.
A de novo inquiry is permissible under Rule 26(1) of the CDA Rules when substantial evidence or procedural defects existed in the prior inquiry, ensuring compliance with principles of natural justice....
The disciplinary authority can remit the case for further enquiry, but a de-novo enquiry is not warranted unless there is a patent irregularity or illegality in the earlier enquiry report.
De novo inquiries lacking essential witness examinations violate natural justice principles, rendering dismissal decisions unlawful.
Proportionality of punishment and adherence to prescribed procedures in disciplinary proceedings.
The disciplinary authority cannot order a fresh enquiry without identifying material irregularities in the previous proceedings, emphasizing adherence to the procedural rules and safeguarding the rig....
The Disciplinary Authority can order further enquiry only if serious defects exist in the initial enquiry; it cannot do so after a finding of exoneration.
Point of law: The protracted disciplinary enquiry against a Government employee issued, therefore, be avoided not only in the interests of Government employee, but in the public interest and also in ....
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.
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
