Back
S. M. SUBRAMANIAM
G. Nagarajan – Appellant
Versus
Secretary to Government, Housing & Urban Development, Chennai – Respondent
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ ofCertiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the Government order made in G.O.(D) No.7 Housing and Urban Development (Na.Va.2(1)) Department dated 08.1.2014 issued by the Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, the first respondent herein in confirming the proceedings of the Director of Town and Country Planning, Chennai, the second respondent herein made in Roc.No.14064/2010/K1 dated 10.12.2010, quash both the orders and direct the respondents herein to disburse all the consequential service and monetary benefits which have been withheld on account of the above penalty including promotion and disburse all the arrears accurred on all the heads within a short date that may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.)
1. The order of punishment of stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect is under challenge in the present writ petition.
2. The petitioner was holding the post of Assistant Director of Town and Country Planning. While the petitioner was working as Assistant Director / Member Secretary (incharge) at Coimbatore, one Mrs.Raj
The court emphasized that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in accordance with the procedures under the Discipline and Appeal Rules, and the scope of judicial review was limited in this cas....
The court emphasized that a disciplinary order must provide clear reasoning; failing this, the order is unsustainable and violates principles of natural justice.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for equal treatment of delinquents in disciplinary proceedings and the adverse impact of delay in concluding disciplinary actions, ....
Delay in initiating the departmental proceedings and splitting up of delinquencies into separate charge memos are fatal and illegal, respectively.
The court emphasized the need for findings in disciplinary proceedings to be based on legally acceptable evidence and held that the admission of fact does not necessarily amount to admission of charg....
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
