Back
S. K. MISHRA, SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
Ajay Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs – Respondent
ORDER :
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J.
The instant intra-court appeal, under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the order/judgment dated 19.07.2021 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 2130 of 2010 whereby and whereunder the order of punishment dated 12.02.2009 passed against the appellant by which the punishment has been imposed of lowering down his pay scale by two stages and his pay scale has been reduced from Rs. 7780 + 2400/- (BP+GP) to Rs. 7170+2400/- (BP+GP) for two years with a further direction that during this period he will not earn any benefit of annual increment and after end of the period the pay scale will affect further annual increment, has been refused to be interfered with by dismissing the writ petition.
2. Brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ proceeding, which are required to be enumerated herein, read as under: –
The appellant-petitioner had joined the service on 31st May, 1999 as Head Constable in the Central Security Force and worked with full satisfaction of his superior authorities at different place of his posing.
While the appellant-petitioner was posted in the Central Industrial Security Force Unit
The punishment of reduction in pay scale under Rule 34(v) of the CISF Rules, 2001 can be for more than one stage, and the principle of parity in punishment applies only to identical charges.
The court emphasized that the quantum of punishment to be imposed in a particular case is essentially the domain of the departmental authorities, and the courts cannot assume the function of discipli....
The High Court can interfere with the quantum of punishment if it is found to be disproportionate to the gravity of the offence, but must assign reasons for finding the punishment to be shocking to i....
Judicial review under Article 226 does not involve reappraising evidence or substituting disciplinary authority's findings unless punishment shocks conscience.
Judicial review of disciplinary punishment is limited to cases where the penalty is shockingly disproportionate or perverse. Parity in punishment is not absolute; it must account for the delinquent's....
A disciplinary authority must provide an opportunity for hearing when it disagrees with an enquiry officer's findings, and any punishment not prescribed by statutory rules is without jurisdiction.
The court established that judicial review of disciplinary actions is limited to cases of gross disproportionality in punishment, reinforcing the authority's discretion in maintaining discipline with....
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
