Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANANDA SEN
Ramesh Oraon, son of Late Akalu Oraon – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition challenges dismissal for procedural lapses and harshness (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. prolonged absence, intoxication, non-participation prove charges (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
JUDGMENT :
SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
1. Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and learned counsel representing the respondents.
2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner who is a Police Constable challenges the order as contained in Memo No.6851 dated 22.07.2013 (Order No.5/13), whereby on conclusion of the departmental proceeding, the petitioner had been dismissed from service. Further, the Appellate Order dated 23.03.2020 is also under challenge. The petitioner also prays for reinstatement.
3. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that without following the principles of natural justice, the petitioner has been dismissed from service. As per him, the witnesses were examined in the departmental proceeding in absence of petitioner. He lastly submits that the punishment imposed is too harsh.
4. Learned counsel representing the respondent – State opposes the aforesaid prayer and submits that the charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner but the petitioner did not choose to appea
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....
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....
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 actions for willful absence must be substantiated by evidence; failure to provide medical justification can uphold discharge under police service rules.
The court affirmed that its jurisdiction in disciplinary matters is limited, focusing on procedural adherence and not reappraising evidence unless the punishment is grossly disproportionate.
Disciplinary authorities must adhere to procedural fairness, including providing defense opportunities, failure of which can breach principles of natural justice, but penalties imposed for gross indi....
Judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited; courts cannot reassess evidence or interfere unless findings are arbitrary or unsupported by evidence.
The court upheld the dismissal of a disciplined force member for unauthorized absence and providing false information, emphasizing the importance of discipline and the limited scope of judicial revie....
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
