Back
J. SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD
A. Andiappan – Appellant
Versus
Principal Secretary to Government – Respondent
ORDER :
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a direction in the nature of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relevant to the G.O.(D)No.249 dated 29.11.2019 and G.O.(D)No.605 dated 05.11.2013 passed by the first respondent by confirming the order in proceedings No.E1/235/2003 dated 01.09.2008 passed by the second respondent and quash the same is illegal, improper against the law and natural justice and thereby direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in to his service with effect from 19.12.2002 and pay back all the service benefits to the petitioner immediately and pass such further orders.
This writ petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relevant to the G.O.(D)No.249 dated 29.11.2019 and G.O.(D)No.605 dated 05.11.2013 passed by the first respondent by confirming the order in proceedings No.E1/235/2003 dated 01.09.2008 passed by the second respondent and quash the same is illegal and thereby directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into his service with effect from 19.12.2002 and pay back all the service benefits to the
Disciplinary actions must be supported by substantial evidence, especially when a criminal acquittal exists for the same charges.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that disciplinary proceedings must be based on some evidence, comply with natural justice, and ensure that the penalty is not disproportionate to t....
The issuance of a charge memo after significant delay and without adherence to natural justice principles constitutes an abuse of process, warranting quashing of the proceedings.
Procedural impropriety in disciplinary proceedings invalidates dismissal; adherence to rules is essential for fairness.
The court ruled that a second charge memo, being a replica of a previously quashed memo, was invalid, emphasizing the principle of non-duplication of disciplinary charges.
The court affirmed the necessity of stringent penalties for corruption within public service, emphasizing that admissions of guilt during inquiries mitigate claims of unjust treatment.
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.
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
