Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
Udesh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to disciplinary authority's punishment orders. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 2. counterarguments by the opposition regarding due process. (Para 5) |
| 3. court's assessment and decision to remit punishment issues. (Para 6) |
ORDER :
1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging the order of punishment passed by the Disciplinary Authority-Opp. Party No.3 vide order dated 14.07.2022 under Annexure-3, further confirmed by the Appellate Authority-Opp. Party No.4 on 01.10.2022 under Annexure-5, and order dated 24.03.2023 passed by the Revisional Authority-Opp. Party No.5 under Annexure-7.
Article-I
Article-II
Article-III
4.1. It is contended that petitioner not only filed his reply to the Memorandum under Annexure-2 but also participated in the enquiry so conducted. However, without proper appreciation of the reply so submitted by the petitioner under Annexure-2, O.P. No.3 while disposing the proceeding vide order dated 14.07.2022 under Annexure-3, imposed the punishment as provided under Rule-34(v) of CISF Rules, 2001 (in short Rules). Rule-34(v) of the Rules reads as follows:-
4.2. It is co
Disciplinary punishment must be proportionate to established charges; unproven allegations should impact final penalties.
The court held that a disciplinary authority must reconsider the punishment imposed when a charge is not proven, ensuring adherence to principles of natural justice.
The absence of a Presenting Officer does not vitiate disciplinary proceedings if conducted fairly, and misconduct is defined as conduct inconsistent with the faithful discharge of duty.
Disciplinary punishment must be proportionate to the misconduct; excessive penalties are subject to modification by the court.
Failure to issue a second show-cause notice as required by Rule 15(10)(i)(b) invalidates the disciplinary punishment, emphasizing adherence to procedural fairness.
The punishment imposed must be proportionate to the misconduct, and courts should remit matters back to the disciplinary authority for reconsideration if disproportionate penalties are found.
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
