Back
S. M. SUBRAMANIAM
M. Shankar Rao – Appellant
Versus
Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary to Government Department of Home Affairs, New Delhi – Respondent
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the order passed by the 3rd respondent in his order No.V-15014/L&R/SS/Rev/SMR/2013-130 dated 15.06.2013, confirming the order of the 4th respondent in his appellate order No.V-15014/NLC/Disc/Appeal-Maj/MSR/2012/13299 dated 29.12.2012 and upheld the order passed by the 5th respondent in his final order No.V-15014/NLC/Disc/Maj-MSR/2012/11001 dated 30.10.2012 to quash the same and to direct the respondents to release the increments reduced by the disciplinary authority and upheld by the appellate and revision authorities.)
The order of punishment of reduction of pay by two stages for a period of one year and the appellate order confirming the order of punishment are under challenge in the present writ petition.
2. The writ petitioner joined as Constable general duty in the Central Industrial Security Force at Visakhapatnam. He was posted at CISF Unit at NLC Neyveli and during the relevant point of time, a charge memo was issued in proceedings dated 02.02.2012 under rule 36 of the CISF Rules. The allegation against the petiti
In cases of dereliction of duty, the absence of an eyewitness does not preclude the establishment of misconduct, and the proportionality of punishment is a key consideration in disciplinary actions.
The court upheld the disciplinary penalty on the petitioner for gross negligence while on duty, emphasizing the significance of maintaining strict discipline in security forces.
The nature of misconduct proved by the Disciplinary Authority is grave in nature and the petitioner acted unbecoming of an Armed Force Personnel, while performing the patrolling duty.
The court upheld the disciplinary action and punishment imposed by the appellate authority, emphasizing the seriousness of the proved misconduct.
Limited scope of interference in departmental enquiries unless there is perversity writ large on the face of the proceedings or gross violation of principles of natural justice.
Disciplinary proceedings conducted in accordance with statutory rules upheld; failure to prevent a security breach justified penalty of withheld increments.
The Court upheld the penalty of removal from service based on the petitioner's admission of charges, failure to submit written explanations, and the consideration of the petitioner's previous conduct....
The principle of proportionality of punishment is crucial in determining the appropriate penalty for proved charges of misconduct.
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
