Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
ANAND SHARMA
Rajendra Kumar Mangwani S/o Late Shri C. L. Mangwani – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Home Department – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. disciplinary actions require substantial justification. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. fair procedures must be followed in disciplinary proceedings. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. past conduct may justify penalties in disciplined services. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. no automatic parity between different cases without evidence. (Para 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 6. writ petition dismissed; order upheld. (Para 20) |
JUDGMENT :
ANAND SHARMA, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 07.08.2001 issued by the Additional Director General of Police (Intelligence), Rajasthan, Jaipur cum Disciplinary Authority, whereby pursuant to disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner, penalty of removal from service has been enforced against the petitioner.
2. It is submitted that the petitioner was initially appointed on 08.11.1996 on the post of Sub-Inspector and on 23.11.1996, he reported for training at Rajasthan Police Academy. It is stated that the petitioner submitted applications for granting leave on the ground that his mother was not well. On account of illness of mother, the p
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 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 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....
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.
A disciplinary authority is empowered to impose dismissal under Section 11 of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949, and past conduct can be considered in determining the penalty for indisciplin....
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.
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
