Back
M. S. RAMESH
Mohamed Naimuddin – Appellant
Versus
Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary to the Government, Department of Home Affairs, New Delhi – Respondent
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the record relating to the order passed by the 3rd respondent dated 30.06.2011 in his order No.V-11014/APS/51 (MN)/LS/2010-7342 confirming the order of the 4th respondent dated 12.05.2009 in his appellate order No.V-11014/02/2009/L&R/(SZ)/1161 and confirming the order passed by the 5th respondent dated 26.12.2008 in his final order No.V-15014/CISF/RGIAL/(MN)/L&R/08-5998 and to quash the same and to direct the respondents to release the increments reduced by the final order of the disciplinary authority.)
1. With the consent of both the parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal.
2. The charge against the petitioner is in the nature of unauthorized absence for a period of 50 days commencing from 21.04.2008. After enquiry, the Disciplinary Authority, through his order dated 26.12.2008, had imposed the punishment of reduction of pay by one stage for a period of two years with effect from 01.01.2009, which will have the effect of postponing the future increments of pay. The appeal and revision against this punishment before t
The limited scope of interference to a punishment imposed pursuant to a departmental enquiry, barring a few exceptions, and the principle that re-appreciation of evidences is not permissible.
The court upheld the disciplinary action based on the established facts and circumstances, emphasizing the importance of considering the intention behind the employee's actions in disciplinary procee....
Habitual unauthorised absence, failure to comply with orders, and proportionality of punishment in disciplinary actions
The court confirmed that an employee's unauthorized absence from duty constitutes misconduct justifying disciplinary action, even when leave has been sanctioned but subsequently cancelled.
The absence from duty must be proven willful for it to amount to misconduct, and the penalty imposed must be commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct.
The punishment imposed must be in accordance with the prescribed list of punishments under the relevant rules and should not deviate from the statutory provisions.
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
