Back
SAMEER JAIN
Shiv Kumar Khandelwal son of Shri. Madan Mohan Gupta – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
ORDER :
1. By way of present petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned charge-sheet dated 24.05.2009 (Annexure-3) issued to the petitioner as also the penalty order dated 07.07.2020 (Annexure-15), whereby, in departmental enquiry conducted under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short “CCA Rules”), the Command Area Development Commissioner, Chambal, Kota (for short “CAD Commissioner”) has imposed a penalty of forfeiture of services prior to 18.07.1999.
2. The facts of the case, as per learned counsel for the petitioner, are as follows. The petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Engineer (Degree Holder) by the Director, Agriculture Department of the State of Rajasthan. In August of 1989, the petitioner was sent on deputation by the Director, Agriculture Department, State of Rajasthan (i.e. parent department) to Command Area Development, Kota (for short “CAD”). In 1998, the petitioner applied for Post Graduate Course, i.e. Masters of Engineering (Agriculture) as a sponsored candidate of Government of Rajasthan in Irrigation Water Management (for short “IWM”) at College of Technology and Agricultural Engineerin
The court emphasized the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary inquiries and upheld the competence of the CAD Commissioner to conduct the proceedings.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a valid punishment order before imposing major penalties, the importance of procedural compliance in disciplinary proceeding....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that disciplinary proceedings must adhere to the provisions of the relevant disciplinary rules and acts, and the penalty imposed must be commensura....
Disciplinary proceedings must be initiated by the appropriate authority as defined by relevant rules; unauthorized initiation renders proceedings invalid.
Point of Law : It would not be safe to rely on the examination-in-chief recorded which was not subjected to cross examination before the summon was made.
Punishment of dismissal of service should be awarded for gravest act of misconduct.
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
