Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANANDA SEN
Amaresh Bhattacharya, son of Late Byomkesh Bhattacharya – Appellant
Versus
General Manager, Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks relief against retirement orders. (Para 1) |
| 2. petitioner's appointment and charges outlined. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. petitioner argues against retirement based on unproven charges. (Para 4) |
| 4. respondent defends charges with evidence. (Para 5) |
| 5. court evaluates departmental proceedings findings. (Para 6) |
| 6. court finds punishment shockingly disproportionate. (Para 7) |
| 7. judicial review scope on quantum of punishment discussed. (Para 8) |
| 8. court remands decision on punishment to authority. (Para 9) |
| 9. writ petition disposed of with final observations. (Para 10) |
JUDGMENT :
ANANDA SEN, J.
By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-
(i) To quash and set aside the order, contained in office order no.256 dated 14.03.2022 (Annexure-7), issued under the pen and signature of Deputy General Manager (respondent No.3), whereby and whereunder, the petitioner has been made to retire from service on 31.03.2014.
(ii) To also quash and set aside the order contained in office order no.278 dated 25.03.2022 (Annexure-8), issued under the pen and signature of Deputy General Manager (Respondent no.3) whereby and whereunder full pension and gratuit
Judicial review of disciplinary actions is limited, and penalties may only be modified if deemed shockingly disproportionate to proven misconduct.
Disciplinary proceedings must be initiated before retirement to continue post-retirement; unilateral alteration of service records without notice violates natural justice.
The court emphasized the importance of conducting departmental proceedings in accordance with the principle of natural justice and directed payment of provisional pension to the petitioner.
Retrospective retirement orders are unlawful as they infringe on employees' accrued rights and benefits.
Article 351-A of CSR empowers the Governor to institute or continue inquiry after retirement.
A disciplinary authority must provide clear reasons for differing from an inquiry officer's findings; failure to do so can render the disciplinary action invalid.
The main legal point established is that an employee is entitled to pension and post-retiral benefits as per the initial order of compulsory retirement, and subsequent amendments denying such benefit....
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
