Back
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT, (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
DEVASHIS BARUAH
Narayan Chandra Das Son Of Late Bhudhiram Das – Appellant
Versus
State Of Assam, Represented By The Commissioner And Secretary To The Government Of Assam – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
1. Heard Mr. S. K. Goswami, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. T. C. Chutia, the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. I have also heard Mr. P. Nayak, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.4 and Mr. R. K. Talukdar, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.5.
2. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner challenging the findings of the Enquiry Officer dated 26.12.2023 as well as the order of penalty so imposed upon the Petitioner dated 07.01.2025 and the Petitioner has further sought for a direction that the regular pension and other pensionary benefits be paid to the Petitioner.
3. The materials on record reveal that the Petitioner herein was appointed in the Cadre of Sub Inspector (UB) vide an appointment letter dated 14.02.1984. The Petitioner thereupon has been promoted from time to time. While the Petitioner was serving as Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Bijni, he was put under suspension vide an order dated the 27.07.2012. Subsequently, he was reinstated vide a Governmen
The Appellate Authority must expeditiously resolve pending appeals regarding departmental inquiries, especially when such inquiries conclude post-retirement.
Inordinate delay in departmental proceedings affecting pension rights can warrant judicial intervention for timely resolution, but does not automatically terminate the proceedings.
The absence of a charge-sheet in pending criminal proceedings allows entitlement to pension and benefits, as departmental proceedings were dropped, exonerating the petitioner.
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....
Prolonged delay in disciplinary proceedings post-retirement may violate an employee's right to due process and cause undue prejudice, warranting quashing of proceedings under constitutional jurisdict....
The court emphasized that judicial review of disciplinary actions is limited and does not permit interference with punishment unless grossly disproportionate, upholding the integrity of public servic....
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
