Back
ORISSA HIGH COURT
KARAMBIR SINGH – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.
The present writ petition has been filed inter alia challenging the order of punishment passed against the Petitioner in a proceeding initiated under Rule 36 of the CISF Rules, 2001 vide charge memo dtd.12.01.2020.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that Petitioner while in service as Head Constable under CISF and posted at Rourkela Steel Plant, Rourkela, the proceeding in question was initiated against him vide charge memo dtd.12.01.2020. In the said proceeding, Petitioner filed his reply and also participated in the enquiry. But the enquiry officer without conducting the enquiry in accordance with law, held the Petitioner guilty of the charges vide his report dt.06.06.2020 under Annexure-3. Petitioner on being communicated with the report along with the show-cause, submitted his reply on 17.06.2020. But without proper appreciation of the same, Petitioner was imposed with the following punishment vide order dtd.30.06.2020:-
“Reduction of pay by 3 stages from Rs.41,600/- to Rs. 38,100/- for a period of 3 years in the pay level (matrix) 05 with immediate effect. It is further directed that he will not earn increment of pay
Disciplinary proceedings must adhere to the principles of natural justice, including supplying relevant documents, but if no prejudice is established, the proceedings may still be upheld.
Disciplinary proceedings must adhere to principles of natural justice, including providing access to relevant evidence. Failure to follow these may invalidate the proceedings.
Disciplinary proceedings must follow the principles of natural justice, including the right to evidence, but non-supply of evidence does not invalidate proceedings if the accused received a fair chan....
Procedural safeguards, fair hearing, and compliance with statutory mandates are essential in disciplinary proceedings, and the violation of such safeguards can render the disciplinary action void.
Disciplinary action necessitates adherence to statutory rules, including providing a disagreement note when diverging from inquiry findings, as failure to do so violates principles of natural justice....
The dismissal of employees without a regular departmental enquiry and based solely on a preliminary enquiry was held to be arbitrary and unsustainable.
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.
The disciplinary authority has the discretion to disagree with an inquiry officer's findings, provided it records reasons for its disagreement and adheres to principles of natural justice in the disc....
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
