Back
PARESH UPADHYAY, D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
Director, Rural Development & Panchayat Raj Department, Chennai – Appellant
Versus
A. Megrunnisa, Advocate. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Appeal preferred under Clause XV of Letters Patent against the order dated 21.04.2022 made in W.P.No.15837 of 2015.)
Paresh Upadhyay, J.
1. Challenge in this appeal is made to the order dated 21.04.2022 recorded on W.P. No.15837 of 2015. This appeal is by the State authorities – respondents in the writ petition.
2. The writ petitioner was dismissed from service vide order dated 22.08.2014 for the misconduct alleged to have been committed by her which is referred to in the order under challenge. Learned single Judge has, by the order under challenge, set aside the dismissal order dated 22.08.2014 and has directed consequential payment to be made to the writ petitioner, who was otherwise to retire on 31.08.2014. It is this order which is under challenge before us.
3. Learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that the writ petitioner was dismissed by the competent authority for proved misconduct and no procedural lapse could be attributed and therefore the discretion and wisdom of the disciplinary authority could not have been gone into by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, more particularly when the appellate authority had confirmed the or
The court has the authority to review dismissal orders under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and can set them aside if found to be unsustainable procedurally, in proportionality, and timing ....
The limited scope of Judicial Review in interfering with the quantum of punishment imposed by the Competent Authority.
The rejection of benefits must be based on a proper application of mind, and disciplinary action must be conducted expeditiously with appropriate evidence.
The main legal point established is that a government employee cannot be dismissed solely on the ground of conviction, and the conduct leading to the conviction must be considered before imposing any....
The importance of following disciplinary procedures and the significance of timely challenge to dismissal orders.
The decision to terminate the petitioner's services and the non-payment of retirement dues, despite no termination order being passed, were deemed illegal and unsustainable.
Non-speaking orders and non-consideration of the petitioner's representation led to the quashing of the dismissal orders.
An unexplained delay of nine years in challenging a dismissal order justifies the dismissal of the petition. Timely action is critical in legal proceedings concerning employment.
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
