Back
D. KRISHNAKUMAR, P. DHANABAL
R. Senthil Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Union of India represented by the Chief Personnel Office / MAS, Chennai – Respondent
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order dated 28.02.2020 made in OA/310/00690/2017 on the file of the 4th respondent, namely the Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, City Civil Court Complex, IInd Floor, High Court Buildings, Chennai-600 104, quash the same as non-est in the eye of law and consequently to allow the O.A.No.310/00690/2017 on the file of the 4th respondent herein, namely the Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, City Civil Court, IInd Floor, High Court Buildings, Chennai-600 104, as prayed for with costs within a time frame fixed by this Court.)
D. Krishnakumar, J.
1. The applicant in the original application is the petitioner herein. Challenge in the writ petition is to the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chenna in O.A.No.310/00690/2017 dated 28.02.2020, in and by which the Tribunal has dismissed the original application upholding the order of punishment of removal from service passed by the disciplinary authority, as confirmed by the appellate as well as revisional authority.
2. The brief facts of t
The punishment imposed in disciplinary proceedings must be proportionate to the charges levelled against the employee, and the court's review is limited to ensuring procedural fairness and proportion....
The main legal point established is that the punishment imposed on a delinquent employee must be proportionate to the misconduct, and the principles of natural justice must be adhered to. The court a....
The court emphasized the compliance with procedural rules, the permissibility of considering past service record for imposing penalty, and the discretion of the Appellate Authority in granting compas....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that disciplinary orders must comply with the principles and provisions of the applicable rules and regulations, including the requirement for vali....
The withdrawal of a charge memo does not necessarily nullify the proceedings, and pendency of disciplinary proceedings can be a valid reason for denying promotion.
Disciplinary proceedings initiated by an authority subordinate to the appointing authority do not violate Article 311; the standard for punishment must align with proven misconduct.
Disciplinary authorities may invoke special procedures for serious misconduct when conducting an inquiry is impractical, maintaining discipline and public safety.
The appellate authority must issue a reasoned order in disciplinary proceedings; failure to do so renders the order invalid.
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
