Back
ALEXANDER THOMAS, C. JAYACHANDRAN
State Of Kerala, Represented By The Principal Secretary, Public Works Department – Appellant
Versus
Jalaja O. , W/o. Suresh Babu V. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. The afore-captioned Original Petition instituted under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the impugned Ext.P4 final order rendered by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram on 9.12.2022 in O.A.No.1959/2021, whereby it has been ordered that the impugned Annexure-A12 penalty order dated 03.09.2021 imposing penalty of bar of the increment with cumulative effect for two years, will stand set aside and that the applicant shall be entitled to all consequential benefits including declaration of probation without any further delay etc.
2. The petitioners herein are the respondents in the Original Application. The sole respondent herein is the sole applicant in the Original Application.
3. Heard Sri.B.Unnikrishna Kaimal, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners in the Original Petition and Smt.Rekha Vasudevan, learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent herein.
4. The above Original Petition has arisen out of the final order rendered on 9.12.2022 in Ext.P1 O.A.No.1959/2021, filed by the respondent herein before the Tribunal. The prayers in Ext.P1 O.A.No.1959/2021 are as follows
It is well settled, by a series of rulings of Apex Court and various High Courts including Court, that in a case where disciplinary authority and enquiry authority are two different functionaries, th....
The court emphasized the necessity for strict adherence to disciplinary procedure as mandated by statutory provisions, establishing that non-compliance renders disciplinary actions invalid.
The court emphasized that a disciplinary order must provide clear reasoning; failing this, the order is unsustainable and violates principles of natural justice.
Non-compliance with statutory provisions renders show cause notice and punishment order unsustainable in law.
The delay in conducting disciplinary proceedings after the retirement of the employee violates the principles of natural justice and fairness. Rule 28(b)(i)(14) of the KS & SSR allows notional promot....
In disciplinary proceedings, the authority imposing penalties must adhere to procedural fairness, including providing reasons for differing from an inquiry officer's findings and allowing the employe....
Point of Law- The word “consider”, is of great significance. Its dictionary meaning of the same is, “to think over”, “to regard as”, or “deem to be”. Hence, there is a clear connotation to the effect....
The disciplinary authority must provide reasons for disagreement with the inquiry report, record its own findings on the charges, and provide the government servant with an opportunity to file a writ....
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
