Back
J. NISHA BANU
S. K. Singh – Appellant
Versus
Director General Central Industrial Security Force, New Delhi – Respondent
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the order passed by the 2nd respondent in his order No. V-15014/L & R/SS/Rev/SKS/2008/2907 dated 04.12.2008 confirming the appellate order No. V-11014/NLC/DISC/APPEAL/SKS/2008-3890 dated 28.04.2008 passed by the third respondent, confirming the final order No.V- 15014/CISF/NLC/Maj/SKS/2007-12830 dated 28.09.2007 passed by the fourth respondent and quash the same and to direct the respondents to pay all the monetary benefits.)
1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the order passed by the 2nd respondent/Inspector General-CISF, dated 04.12.2008, whereby the 2nd respondent confirmed the order passed by the appellate authority/third respondent dated 28.04.2008 who confirmed the final order dated 28.09.2007 passed by the fourth respondent/Commandant, CISF Unit, NLC Neyveli, who held that the petitioner''s pay will be reduced to minimum stage for a period of two years and that he will not earn increment during the period of reduction and that on expiry of this period, the reduction will have t
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of discipline and hierarchical structure in uniformed services, particularly in cases involving assault on a senior officer.
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.
The main legal point established is that fair and proper departmental enquiry proceedings, including the choice of language and cross-examination of witnesses, are crucial in determining the validity....
The judgment establishes that there is no provision for filing an appeal/application against the order of revision, and the petitioner can challenge the final order by way of revision before the conc....
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.
Disciplinary actions must adhere to established procedures, and courts will not interfere unless the punishment is shockingly disproportionate or the process violated natural justice.
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.
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
