Back
RAJESH SHANKAR
Keshwar Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order as contained in letter no. 410/D dated 09.11.2016 (Annexure-13 to the writ petition) issued by the Inspector General of Police (Training), Jharkhand, Ranchi, whereby Memorial Appeal filed by the petitioner has been rejected being time barred. Further prayer has been made for quashing the order as contained in memo no. 409/Go. dated 27.05.2016 (Anneuxure-11 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent no. 4 – the Deputy Inspector General, Coal Range, Bokaro, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the respondent no. 5 – the Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad being the disciplinary authority has been dismissed. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the order as contained in memo no. 954/Go. dated 18.02.2015 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent no. 5, whereby punishment of three blackmarks was imposed upon him (equivalent to forfeiture of two annual increments) observing that the same would not affect the future increment with a further direction to forfeit the salary and allowance payable to the petitioner for the dismissal period (i.e., 09.01.2004 to
The determination of misconduct lies primarily within the domain of the disciplinary authority, and the scope of interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is limited.
The High Court does not act as an appellate authority in disciplinary matters and will not interfere with the quantum of punishment unless it is shocking to the conscience.
The disciplinary authority has the discretion to impose appropriate punishment as per the rules, and the court's role in judicial review is to ensure fair treatment, not to reappreciate the evidence.....
The dismissal from service must be proportionate to the alleged misconduct and should not violate constitutional provisions such as double jeopardy. The imposition of punishment should adhere to the ....
The High Court upheld the dismissal of a constable for unauthorized absence, ruling that appropriate procedures were followed, and punishment was not disproportionate to the violations committed.
Disciplinary penalties must be proportionate to the misconduct, considering the individual's service history and circumstances surrounding the case.
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
