Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T.VINOD KUMAR
Peethala Ramu – Appellant
Versus
Director General/Central Industrial Security Force, New Delhi – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. grounds for disciplinary action and response. (Para 2 , 4 , 6 , 10) |
| 2. duties of members of the central industrial security force. (Para 18 , 20 , 21 , 23) |
| 3. judicial review constraints in disciplinary cases. (Para 24 , 25 , 41) |
ORDER :
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents and perused the record.
2. The petitioner by the present writ petition has assailed the action of the 4th respondent in passing the order dated 31.07.2019 by which he was awarded punishment in the form of penalty of “reduction of pay by three stages from Rs.29,300/- to Rs.26,800/- in pay level-3 for a period of three years with immediate effect. It is further directed that during the period of reduction, he will not earn increments and on expiry of this period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay” and the action of the 3rd respondent in confirming the said order in appeal vide order dated 27.11.2019 and the further action of the 2nd respondent in rejecting the revision filed by the petitioner against the order of the 3rd respondent confirming the order of the 4th respondent vide order
Judicial review under Article 226 does not involve reappraising evidence or substituting disciplinary authority's findings unless punishment shocks conscience.
The High Court does not act as an appellate authority in disciplinary matters and will not interfere with the quantum of punishment unless it is shocking to the conscience.
The main legal point established in the given judgment is the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary inquiries and the principles of proportionality and the Wednesbury rule.
The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to principles of natural justice in disciplinary inquiries, asserting that findings must be supported by adequate evidence and fair procedures.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of interference in disciplinary proceedings, emphasizing the need for evidence-based findings and the principles of proportionali....
The court affirmed the principle that judicial review of administrative actions in disciplinary processes is limited to procedural correctness, not evidential review, and mandated reconsideration of ....
Judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited; courts cannot reassess evidence or interfere unless findings are arbitrary or unsupported by evidence.
Judicial review of disciplinary actions is limited; courts do not interfere unless findings are perverse or punishment is shockingly disproportionate.
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
