Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
B.P.ROUTRAY
Hrudananda Behera – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha, represented through its Special Secretary, Home Department – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. proceedings against police inspector (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. disciplinary authority disagreement reasoning (Para 4 , 6) |
| 3. procedural requirements for disagreement (Para 5 , 7) |
| 4. natural justice in disciplinary proceedings (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 5. writ petition allowed (Para 11) |
JUDGMENT :
B.P. Routray, J.
1. Heard Mr. S.K. Das, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. D. Mohanty, learned AGA for State - Opposite Parties.
2. The Petitioner is a serving Inspector of Police and he was proceeded with departmentally in CID CB Proceeding No.02 of 2016. The charge was for not carrying the instructions imparted by the supervising officer in course of investigation of a sensational case of rape and murder by the Petitioner while acting as the investigating officer in CID CB, Odisha Police. An enquiry officer was appointed and he submitted his report dated 29th November, 2017 holding that the delinquent (Petitioner) is not guilty of the charges.
3. The disciplinary authority, who is the DG and IG of Police, Odisha disagreed with the finding of the enquiring officer holding him not guilty. Accordingly, the Petitioner was asked to submit his reply to such disagreement of the disciplinary aut
Disciplinary authorities must provide clear, written reasons when disagreeing with inquiry officer's findings and must afford the charged officer an opportunity to respond before imposing punishment.
Disciplinary authorities must provide an opportunity to represent when disagreeing with an inquiry officer’s findings, as per principles of natural justice.
The Superintendent of Police can impose penalties on Sub-Inspectors, but failure to follow due process, including issuing a second show-cause notice, breaches natural justice and invalidates the disc....
Disciplinary authorities must provide grounds for disagreement with inquiry findings to uphold natural justice; failure to do so invalidates imposed penalties.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for disciplinary authorities to base their findings on cogent reasons, seek explanation before inflicting major penalty, and pro....
Disciplinary authorities must observe principles of natural justice when recording disagreements with inquiry reports, particularly by providing tentative reasons and an opportunity for representatio....
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
