Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
Vidya Albert Yen – Appellant
Versus
Government of Tamil Nadu Rep by Secretary to Government, Health and Family Welfare Department – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner challenged disciplinary order. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments raised against the disciplinary action. (Para 4) |
| 3. respondents' defense and court's review. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. court's doubts regarding petitioner's absence. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. court's modification of penalty for non-compliance. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 6. writ petition partly allowed. (Para 11) |
ORDER :
1. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the first respondent dated 22.06.2012 in G.O.(D) No.530 of the Health and Family Welfare (1-1) Department.
2. By the said impugned order, the petitioner has been imposed with the punishment of stoppage of increment for one year with cumulative effect, thereby affecting her pension.
3. The brief facts of the case, in short, are as follows:–
i) The petitioner, while serving as Assistant Professor of Periodontia at the Tamil Nadu Government Dental College and Hospital, Chennai, was issued a charge memo dated 03.02.2011 containing three charges, which are as under:–
“Charge 1 That, Dr.Vidya Albert Yen, formerly Assistant Professor of Periodontia, Tamil Nadu Government Dental College and Hospital, Chennai was granted permission to study at La Trobe University, Australia an
Disciplinary actions must adhere to procedural fairness; non-compliance may lead to modifications in penalties imposed.
In a departmental proceeding, the absence of willfulness in unauthorized absence from duty does not amount to misconduct, and findings must be based on evidence.
Disciplinary action must consider proportionality of punishment in light of circumstances, including health issues, and proper procedure must be followed to ensure fair treatment.
Administrative authorities have the power to enhance penalties following due process, and procedural fairness was upheld in disciplinary actions regarding employment leave and absence during service.
The court ruled that while the petitioner was guilty of misconduct, the punishment of removal from service was found to be disproportionate, warranting reinstatement with a lesser penalty.
Judicial review in disciplinary proceedings is limited to procedural compliance, not re-evaluating evidence or findings of misconduct.
Termination without proper procedure and documentation is disproportionate, violating legal norms on employee's rights.
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
