Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
ARUN MONGA, SUNIL BENIWAL
Satya Garg W/o Dr. R.C. Garg – Appellant
Versus
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan through its Commissioner, New Delhi – Respondent
ORDER :
Sunil Beniwal, J.
1. The present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner, being aggrieved by the order dated 13.01.2012 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur (‘the Tribunal’) in Original Application No. 134/2010, whereby the OA was dismissed.
2. The brief facts, in a nutshell, which led to the filing of the present writ petition are that the petitioner filed an Original Application (‘OA’) bearing No. 134/2010 challenging the order dated 01.05.2009 passed by the Disciplinary Authority, whereby the petitioner was held guilty of the charges levelled against her and a major penalty was imposed upon her, directing that she be demoted to the lower post of Vice Principal in the pay scale which she was drawing prior to her promotion to the post of Principal. Apart from this, she was debarred from further promotion till her retirement. The petitioner also challenged the order dated 02.03.2010, whereby the Appellate Authority affirmed the order dated 01.05.2009 passed by the Disciplinary Authority.
2.1 The OA filed by the petitioner was decided by the Tribunal, comprising two members, i.e. one Judicial Member and one Administrative Member, vide
The court affirmed that the disciplinary authority's decision, supported by a fair inquiry process, is not subject to re-evaluation by the court unless it is shockingly disproportionate.
The Court emphasized that it does not act as an appellate authority to re-appreciate the evidence and that the disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. The Court also highlighted that the s....
Procedural impropriety in disciplinary proceedings invalidates dismissal; adherence to rules is essential for fairness.
Termination of service without inquiry and prior approval violates statutory provisions and principles of natural justice.
Disciplinary Authority must consider charged officer's representation against disagreement with inquiry report under CCS(CCA) Rule 15(2A); ignoring it vitiates penalty order.
Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction by setting aside the dismissal order of the respondent No.1 in view of the charges, which were proved against him.
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
