Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI
Dambaru Chetia S/o Gafu Chetia – Appellant
Versus
State of Assam – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.
1. The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging, inter alia, the action of the respondent authorities in imposing the penalty of stoppage 5 increments with cumulative effect in a departmental proceeding. The petitioner has also challenged the dismissal of the departmental appeal which was preferred against the order of penalty. For ready reference, the relief prayed for in this writ petition is extracted hereinbelow-
“Under the facts and circumstances, it is prayed that Your Lordships may be pleased to admit this petition, called for the records, issue Rule, calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why a writ in the nature of certiorari should not be issued for setting aside and quashing the impugned order of penalty dated 02.12.2008 imposing penalty of stoppage of 5 (three) increments with cumulative effect passed by the respondent no. 3 vide Annexure – VII and WT message dated 2/11/2019 passed by the respondent no. 3 dismissing the Appeal vide Annexure XII and/or as to why a writ in the nature of Mandamus should not be issued to cancel/ rescind or otherwise for bearing from giving effect to t
The acquittal in a criminal case does not invalidate disciplinary proceedings, which require a lower standard of proof, and the Limitation Act does not apply to such proceedings.
Disciplinary authority's discretion under CISF Rules allows for minor penalties without mandatory inquiry, provided no gross illegality or violation of natural justice occurs.
The Court affirmed that a show cause notice can initiate disciplinary proceedings if it meets the procedural requirements outlined in the relevant rules.
Judicial review of disciplinary proceedings is limited to checking the decision-making process; courts cannot reassess evidence unless penalties are shockingly disproportionate.
The Court affirmed that disciplinary authorities can enhance penalties without an appeal under Rule 29(d) of the CRPF Act, emphasizing the need for discipline in paramilitary forces.
Acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically exonerate an employee from departmental disciplinary proceedings.
The court emphasized the importance of timely filing of appeals and writ petitions, the inability of successive representations to condone delay, and the limited scope of judicial review in disciplin....
Withholding increments with cumulative effect permissible as major penalty under Rule 66 after regular enquiry; challenge after 16-year delay barred by laches, no continuing cause of action from recu....
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
