Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
A.C.BEHERA
Rohit Kumar Sahu – Appellant
Versus
Director General and Inspector of General of Police, Orissa Cuttack – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
A.C. Behera, J.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the Opposite Parties praying for setting aside(quashing) an order dated 07.06.2004 vide Annexure-4 passed in Proceeding No.16 of 2003 by the Commandant, O.S.A.P., 4th Battalion, Rourkela(Opposite Party No.3) against the petitioner for his removal from the service w.e.f. 07.06.2004 as well as the order of confirmation to that Annexure-4 passed by the I.G. of Police SAP, Orissa, Cuttack(Opposite Party No.2) and D.G. of Police, Orissa, Cuttack(Opposite Party No.1) in appeal and revision respectively and to direct the Opposite Parties to reinstate him(petitioner) in his service giving anti-dated effect and also to direct to the Opposite Parties to treat the period of suspension as duty.
2. The case of the petitioner is that, he(petitioner-Rohit Kumar Sahu) was properly selected in an interview as a Sepoy and on dated 07.07.1989, he was duly appointed as a Sepoy and his number was Sepoy/335. He was posted at 4th Battalion, Rourkela. Accordingly, since 07.07.1989, he was discharging his duties with utmost devotion, commitment and stainless to all concerned. His service carrier was spotless, unblemished. W
Disciplinary punishment must align with the severity of the misconduct, and excessive penalties can be subject to judicial review and modification.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle of proportionality in imposing disciplinary action, the requirement for clear and specific charges in a domestic inquiry, and the sco....
The court overturned the removal of service, finding the penalty imposed was shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct, violating the principles of natural justice and the proportionality standar....
Judicial review of disciplinary actions is limited to ensuring due process was followed, not to reassess the proportionality of punishment unless it is shockingly disproportionate.
The High Court upheld the dismissal of a constable for unauthorized absence, ruling that appropriate procedures were followed, and punishment was not disproportionate to the violations committed.
(1) Question of quantum of punishment in disciplinary matters is primarily for disciplinary authority and jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226 of Constitution or of Administrative Tribunals ....
A disciplinary authority is empowered to impose dismissal under Section 11 of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949, and past conduct can be considered in determining the penalty for indisciplin....
Habitual absenteeism in a disciplined force can justify the imposition of a major penalty like dismissal from service, and such penalty may not be considered disproportionate to the allegations.
Habitual absenteeism in a disciplined force justifies dismissal, and previous misconduct can be considered in determining penalties.
The court upheld the punishment of dismissal from service, finding it to be proportionate to the offense committed and in compliance with the due process of law.
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
