Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR
ANAND SHARMA
Hans Raj Doi S/o Shri Devi Ram – Appellant
Versus
Union of India through Secretary, Department of Home, New Delhi – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ANAND SHARMA, J.
1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition assailing order dated 27.07.2002 whereby penalty of removal from service has been imposed upon him. That apart, the petitioner has also challenged appellate, revisional and subsequent rejection orders dated 08.11.2002, 01.01.2003, 21.03.2003 and 24.07.2003 respectively and sought for a direction to reinstate him back in service along with all consequential benefits.
2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner was appointed as Constable (GD) through direct recruitment in the year 1995 and joined his duties at Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF Group Centre), Ajmer. Thereafter, the petitioner also served with B/100 Battalion, Rapid Action Force, CRPF, Ahmedabad. In order to show his commendable performance, the petitioner has placed before this Court certificates revealing that he was repeatedly appreciated by superior officers and awarded cash rewards on as many as eight occasions. His performance during sensitive and arduous deployments, including post-riot duties in Gujarat following the Godhra incident and rescue and relief operations during the devastating Bhuj earthquake, was formally ack
Disciplinary proceedings must adhere to principles of natural justice, and penalties require clear justification; absence without leave does not equate to desertion without intent to abandon service.
Proportionality of punishment and adherence to prescribed procedures in disciplinary proceedings.
The Commandant has the discretion to impose dismissal or removal from service for misconduct under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act.
The punishment of dismissal was disproportionate to the offence of unauthorized absence from duty.
The court emphasized the importance of following the prescribed disciplinary procedures and upheld the principle of proportionality in imposing penalties for misconduct.
Disciplinary actions must follow due process, and absence due to illness cannot be deemed willful misconduct without proper inquiry.
The doctrine of proportionality must be applied in determining the proportionality of punishment in disciplinary proceedings, and the punishment must be commensurate with the fault committed.
The court upheld the removal of a constable for repeated indiscipline, affirming the adherence to procedural safeguards in disciplinary proceedings.
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
