Back
S. M. SUBRAMANIAM
K. R. K. Kutty – Appellant
Versus
Union of India, Represented by its Secretary to Government, New Delhi – Respondent
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the order passed by the second respondent dated 09.12.2013 in his order No.V-11015/48/Anu/SZ/2013/8961 confirming the order of the third respondent dated 26.07.2013 in his order No.V-11014/ RSTPS(R)/Appeal/Adm.4/KRKK/2013/1789 confirming the order of the fourth respondent dated 27.05.2013 in his final order No.V-15014/RSTPS(R)/Min/Adm.IV/KRKK/13/1294 and the order of the third respondent dated 18/19.02.2014 in his order No.E-24018/44/OSL/JKS/ Adm.III/2014-343 and quash the same and to direct the respondents to pay all monetary benefits to the petitioner.)
1. The order of punishment of withholding of one increment for a period of three years which will not have the effect of postponing his future increment of pay, confirmed by the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority, are under challenge in the present writ petition.
2. The writ petitioner was working as Head Constable and detailed for 'C' Shift duty. The petitioner states that after dinner, he felt some tiredness and senseless feeling and
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 and punishment imposed by the appellate authority, emphasizing the seriousness of the proved misconduct.
Disciplinary actions must adhere to principles of natural justice, including proper enquiry and opportunity to be heard, even for minor penalties.
Unauthorized absence from duty due to compelling circumstances beyond the employee's control, such as illness or hospitalization of a family member, cannot be considered willful and does not amount t....
Sufficient and effective opportunity should be granted to the delinquent in the domestic enquiry, especially when there is contemplation to impose a major punishment.
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 emphasized the importance of procedural compliance in disciplinary proceedings and upheld the principle of proportionality in imposing punishment.
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.
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
