Back
RAJNESH OSWAL
Abdul Rehman – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing the order bearing No. P-8.01/2011-22-Est-2 dated 24.12.2011, by virtue of which the increment of the petitioner for two years without cumulative effect has been stopped and the petitioner has been treated as deserter/absentee from 24.11.2010 to 26.12.2010.The petitioner has also impugned the order dated 19.07.2012, by virtue of which the respondent No. 3 dismissed the application filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 24.12.2011.The order dated 10.12.2012 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected by the respondent No. 2 has also been impugned by the petitioner. The petitioner has also prayed for directing the respondents to release the increment which has not been given to the petitioner since 29.12.2013.
2. The petitioner has impugned the orders mentioned above on the ground that the respondent No. 4 had sanctioned leave on 23.11.2010 for 20 days, on the application filed by the petitioner. As soon as the petitioner left the station, the respondent No. 4 immediately on 24.11.2010 due to some personal grudge issued warrant against the petitioner which was forwarded for its executio
The punishment imposed must be proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct, and the principles of natural justice and statutory regulations prescribing the mode of enquiry must be followed.
The main legal point established is that absence from duty cannot be deemed wilful if due to compelling circumstances, and disciplinary proceedings must be based on cogent material.
Proportionality of punishment and adherence to prescribed procedures in disciplinary proceedings.
The court upheld the disciplinary action against the petitioner for unauthorized absence, finding no procedural irregularities and confirming the penalty of removal from service as justified.
The court emphasized the importance of following the prescribed disciplinary procedures and upheld the principle of proportionality in imposing penalties for misconduct.
Unauthorized absence from duty, failure to abide by leave application directions, and pre-planned leave without proper sanction constitute gross indiscipline, misconduct, and dereliction of duty unde....
The Commandant has the discretion to impose dismissal or removal from service for misconduct under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act.
The disciplinary authority is not bound to accept the inquiry officer's findings and must ensure adherence to procedural rules in conducting inquiries, even amid ongoing criminal 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
