Back
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
BOLIN SAIKIA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF ASSAM – Respondent
ORDER :
N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J.
Heard Mr. D.S. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Bora, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam appearing for the State respondent as well as Mr. B. Chakraborty, learned standing counsel, AG(A&E), Assam.
2. The petitioner by way of instituting the present writ petition has presented a challenge to the order dated 11-05-2007, issued by the Commandant, 3rd Assam Police Battalion, Titabar, imposing upon the petitioner a penalty of stoppage of 04 (four) annual increments with cumulative effect on conclusion of the Disciplinary Proceeding instituted against him.
3. As projected in the writ petition, the petitioner while working as Havildar/ Head Constable in the 3rd Assam Police Battalion, Titabar, in view of his unauthorized absence, came to be placed under suspension vide order dated 04-08-2006. Thereafter, a show- cause notice dated 18-08-2006 came to be issued to the petitioner invoking the provisions of the Assam Police Act read with Assam Police Manual, on the allegation of having remained under unauthorized absence. The show-cause notice also refers to the past service records of the petitioner, to the effect that he had a habitually o
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....
Habitual absenteeism in a disciplined force justifies dismissal, and previous misconduct can be considered in determining penalties.
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 imposition of a penalty not prescribed under statutory rules is invalid, and cumulative penalties are not permissible under the Central Reserve Police Force Rules.
The disciplinary authority cannot impose a penalty not provided in the rules or the AFS Act, 1985.
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....
Penalties imposed must align with statutory provisions; cumulative penalties not prescribed are invalid.
The conviction of an employee in an offence involving moral turpitude permits the Disciplinary Authority to initiate disciplinary proceeding and impose penalties. The release on probation of good con....
The penalty imposed on the petitioner for unauthorized absence was found disproportionate due to his health issues, leading to a ruling for compulsory retirement with pension instead.
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
