IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SANJAY PRASAD
Anand Kumar S/o Jadunandan Ray – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY PRASAD, J.
1. Initially the petitioner had filed W.P.(S) No.5610 of 2009 on 02.12.2009 for the following reliefs:-
“(i) For the issuance of an appropriate writ order direction for quashing the notification as contained in notification No.28/04 dated 7.1.05 whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been punished for the punishment of Censure and 3 annual increments have been withheld with cumulative effect.
(ii) For the issuance of an appropriate writ order direction commanding upon the respondent to forthwith release the entire arrears of difference of salary along with penal interest.”
And for other ancillary reliefs.
2. Thereafter the respondents- State of Jharkhand had appeared and filed counter affidavit on 22.01.2010 and although the copy of counter affidavit filed by the State of Bihar was served to the learned counsel for the petitioner on 28.01.2010 but the said counter affidavit of the State of Bihar is not on record.
3. Thereafter even the petitioner had filed supplementary affidavit on 26.06.2012 and 25.10.2016.
4. Thereafter the amended writ petition was filed on 14.01.2013 which was filed in the light of the order dated 21.12.2012 passed by the Co-ordinate Be
Kamta Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar
Managing Director ECIL Hyderbad Vs. B. Karunakar
Suresh Koshy George v. University of Kerala
Shadi Lal Gupta v. State of Punjab
Hira Nath Misra v. Principal, Rajendra Medical College, Ranchi
Satyavir Singh v. Union of India
Secretary, Central Board of Excise & Customs v. K.S. Mahalingam
Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel
Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. v. Union of India
Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank and Others
Union of India and Ors. Vs. Gyan Chand Chattar
State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. Vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha
Rajendra Ram Vs. The State of Bihar through Chief Secretary & Ors.
Punjab National Bank vs. Kunj Behari Misra
Managing Director ECIL Hyderbad Vs. B. Karunakar
Amar Nath Chowdhury vs. Braiithwaite and Co. Ltd and Ors.
The disciplinary authority that initiates proceedings must be the appointing authority; actions taken by a subordinate authority are illegal and violate principles of natural justice.
The disciplinary authority must provide reasons for disagreement with the inquiry report, record its own findings on the charges, and provide the government servant with an opportunity to file a writ....
Disciplinary proceedings against government employees must be conducted fairly, based on adequate evidence, and require reasoned decisions to uphold the principles of natural justice.
Disciplinary action necessitates adherence to statutory rules, including providing a disagreement note when diverging from inquiry findings, as failure to do so violates principles of natural justice....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.