Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
ANAND SHARMA
Rambir Singh – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ANAND SHARMA, J.
1. Petitioner has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, feeling aggrieved by penalty order dated 24.10.2000, whereby he has been removed from service as well as by charge-sheet dated 16.05.2000 on the basis of which, after conducting enquiry the aforesaid removal order dated 24.10.2000 has been passed. Petitioner has also assailed the order dated 25.01.2001, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the penalty order has been dismissed. He has also prayed for consequential relief in the instant writ petition.
2. Petitioner has categorically averred that he was initially appointed on the post of ‘Constable’ in Central Industrial Security Force (for short, ‘the CISF’) on 10.08.1993 on probation for two years. His services were confirmed vide order dated 10.05.1997.
3. Petitioner has also stated in the memo of writ petition that one charge-sheet dated 16.05.2000 in exercise of powers under CISF Rules, 1969 was served upon the petitioner, wherein the imputation has been levelled against the petitioner; that on 08.03.2000 when he was discharging his duties at E-Samvaay, then he was found indulging in quarr
The court upheld the disciplinary authority's decision, affirming that the enquiry followed due process and that differing penalties were justified based on the conduct and service records of the inv....
Judicial review of disciplinary proceedings is limited to checking the decision-making process; courts cannot reassess evidence unless penalties are shockingly disproportionate.
Disciplinary authorities must adhere to procedural fairness, including providing defense opportunities, failure of which can breach principles of natural justice, but penalties imposed for gross indi....
The court affirmed that disciplinary actions comply with regulatory procedures, denying petitioner's claims of unfair treatment.
The court upheld the disciplinary authority's decision, affirming that the absence was willful and the disciplinary process was properly followed, emphasizing the limited scope of judicial review.
Judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited; courts may intervene if the penalty is shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct.
Judicial review in disciplinary proceedings is limited; High Courts cannot interfere with findings or penalties unless they are manifestly illegal or shockingly disproportionate.
In disciplinary proceedings, the standard of proof is based on preponderance of probabilities, differing from criminal trials where guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
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
