Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
KAUSHIK GOSWAMI
Ct/fitter Mufiz Uddin, Force No. 135096897 S/o Hazi Jia Uddin – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
J UDGMENT :
KAUSHIK GOSWAMI, J.
Heard Mr. R. Mazumdar, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.K. Medhi, learned Standing Counsel, Central Government Counsel for the respondents.
2. By way of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , the petitioner is assailing inter- alia the impugned order dated 07.07.2020 passed by the DIGP Range HQ, CRPF, (hereinafter referred to as the “revisional authority”) whereby the petitioner was removed from service.
3. The facts of the present case are as follows: -
Pursuant to an advertisement in the year 2013 to the post of Constable/Fitter issued by the Central Reserve Force, the petitioner participated in the recruitment process and upon being selected, he was appointed as Constable/Fitter. Thereafter, upon receiving a complaint that the petitioner had submitted fake certificate regarding the experience criteria at the time of recruitment, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer after completing his enquiry submitted Enquiry Report on 04.03.2019 before the disciplinar
The revisional authority's power must be exercised within the prescribed time limit; failure to do so renders the order void.
Review procedures initiated within six months can extend beyond that period due to necessary legal processes, ensuring fairness and justice.
The lack of a specified time limit for revising authority under Rule 29(1)(vi) invalidates the enhancement of punishment, emphasizing adherence to procedural fairness.
Rightly observed by Tribunal, the above sub-Rule (1) of Rule 29 indicates 6 categories of revisional authorities. If we go further it shows that while no period is mentioned in sub-clauses (i) to (iv....
The revisional authority must provide an opportunity for representation if proposing to enhance the penalty imposed by the order sought to be revised, as per Rule 29(1) of the Central Civil Services ....
Revisional authority under Rule 25 RS(D&A) Rules must be in direct line of control of charged railway servant; notice by incompetent authority quashed.
The court ruled that revising an employee's promotion without providing a fair opportunity violates natural justice and relevant statutory rules.
The starting point for limitation in appeals is the actual or constructive knowledge of the order by the affected party, not merely the order's issuance date.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle of exhaustion of alternative remedy and the interpretation of statutory provisions under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and R....
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
