Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANANDA SEN
Kamal Nag, Son of Late Budhram Nag – Appellant
Versus
Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. dismissal order and reinstatement details (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. unjustified absence and misconduct findings (Para 4 , 6) |
| 3. limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters (Para 5) |
| 4. court's affirmation of appellate authority's decision (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. final dismissal of the petition (Para 9) |
ORDER :
ANANDA SEN, J.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner prays for quashing the order dated 20.12.2014 (Annexure-5 to this writ petition), whereby the petitioner has been removed from service for absence without leave with effect from 3.3.2014 to 26.6.2014 and also other penalty was inflicted upon him. It has also been prayed to quash the order dated 25.3.2015 (Annexure-7) whereby the petitioner was reinstated in service but increment of the petitioner was stopped for two years. He further prays for setting aside the entire departmental proceeding and quashing the order of the I.G. and prays for grant of all consequential benefits treating the petitioner to be in service continuously.
3. From the pleading of the parties, I find that Annexure-5 is the order dated 20.12.2014 by which, the petitioner has been removed fr
Judicial review in departmental proceedings is limited to ensuring adherence to natural justice and does not permit reappraisal of evidence or substitution of views if a reasonable conclusion is reac....
Under Article 226, High Courts cannot re-appreciate evidence or interfere with punishment in departmental proceedings absent procedural flaws, no evidence, or shockingly disproportionate penalty, esp....
High Court interference in disciplinary proceedings against disciplined force members limited to natural justice violations, no evidence, or shockingly disproportionate punishment; dismissal for unau....
The court upheld the disciplinary authority's decision to impose a 100% pension cut for unauthorized absence, emphasizing the importance of discipline in public service.
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.
Judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited; courts cannot reassess evidence or interfere unless findings are arbitrary or unsupported by evidence.
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
