Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
SUDESH BANSAL, J
Ram Dayal Singh Son Of Shri Sawai Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. habitual absenteeism without leave (Para 5 , 6) |
| 2. mental illness defense (Para 7 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. sufficient opportunity to defend (Para 8) |
| 4. judicial review limitations (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 17) |
| 5. writ petition dismissed (Para 16) |
ORDER :
Sudesh Bansal, J.
1. Instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, was filed by petitioner wayback on 28.05.2014, impugning the order dated 06.10.2007 passed by the Director General, Prisons Rajasthan, Jaipur, dismissing the petitioner from service, following the enquiry report pursuant to the charge-sheet dated 26.06.2004, to remain absent from duty as Prahari in jail from 31.07.2003 to 25.02.2004, without giving intimation and submitting any leave application.
2. It has been noticed by this Court that though the writ petition has been filed after a delay of near about 7 years, which is not well explained, however, considering the nature of punishment of removal from services, this Court is deciding the writ petition on merits as well.
3. During course of arguments, counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner challenged the order of removal dated 06.10.2007, by way of filing an appeal under Rule 23 of
The court upheld the dismissal of the petitioner for habitual absenteeism, affirming that judicial review does not permit re-evaluation of evidence or findings of the disciplinary authority.
The limited scope of Judicial Review in interfering with the quantum of punishment imposed by the Competent Authority.
The court affirmed that its jurisdiction in disciplinary matters is limited, focusing on procedural adherence and not reappraising evidence unless the punishment is grossly disproportionate.
Judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited; courts may intervene if the penalty is shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct.
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.
The punishment imposed must be proportionate to the gravity of the proved charges, and the court will interfere only if the punishment is shockingly disproportionate.
Habitual unauthorised absence, failure to comply with orders, and proportionality of punishment in disciplinary actions
The Court emphasized that while past conduct can influence punishment, it cannot serve as the sole basis for dismissal without it being specifically charged and substantiated.
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
