IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RAJ MOHAN SINGH, J.
Narain Parshad – Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana & Ors. – Respondents
CWP NO. 14912 of 2015 (O&M) AND CWP NO. 14006 of 2
Decided On : 24-02-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. issuance of writs and departmental background (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. allegations against petitioner and inquiry outcome (Para 4) |
| 3. lack of disciplinary procedures (Para 5) |
| 4. improper service of chargesheet (Para 6) |
| 5. rules governing disciplinary actions (Para 7) |
| 6. quashing of departmental proceedings (Para 8 , 9) |
JUDGMENT
Raj Mohan Singh, J. (Oral)
Vide this common order, CWP No.14912 of 2015 and CWP No.14006 of 2015 are being decided.
2. In CWP No.14912 of 2015, the petitioner has prayed for the issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the entire departmental proceedings along with order dated 16.07.2015 (Anneuxre P-5) communication issued to the petitioner in the context of issuing chargesheet which was never served upon the petitioner. In the second petition i.e. CWP No.14006 of 2015, the petitioner has prayed for the issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to release the gratuity of the petitioner alongwith interest @ 18%. Since both the petitions have arisen out of the similar controversy, therefore, for brevity common facts are being noticed.
3. The petitioner was enrolled as a Constable in the Police Department, Haryana on 15.10.1979 in the District Gurugram. The petitioner had retired as an Inspector on 31.03.2013. During the service tenure of the petitioner from 18.10.1979 till 25.05.2013, it can be noticed that on 18.10.1979, the petitioner was transferred from the District Gurugram to 3rd Bn. HAP, Madhuban. On 07.07.1980, he was transferred from 3rd Bn. HAP to 5th Bn. HAP, Madhuban. Thereafter on 01.7.1981, he was deputed from 5th Bn. HAP to Finger Print Bureau, CID Special Branch, Madhuban. The petitioner was promoted as Head Constable in CID on 10.08.1982 and thereafter allotted promotion list 'C' in HAP Madhuban on 25.10.1983. The petitioner was promoted as Head Constable in HAP Madhuban vide order dated 14.11.1983 and was confirmed as such on 31.01.1988. The State Crime Record Bureau (SCRB) Haryana came into existence as a separate cadre on 01.04.1987 and the petitioner was allowed to continue in the aforesaid SCRB. Options were invited for permanent absorption in SCRB and the petitioner submitted the same in the month of May, 1987. The instructions were issued by the Department in the month of July, 1987 not to repatriate to parent unit/department who has given their option for permanent absorption in SCRB, Haryana. The petitioner was promoted as ASI in SCRB on 26.08.1987 and was promoted to the post of Sub-Inspector in SCRB on 20.10.1989. Thereafter in the year 1996, the petitioner was transferred from Madhuban to Rohtak Range Rohtak and on 16.12.1997, he was transferred from Madhuban to Hisar Range, Hisar. The petitioner remained deputed in State Vigilance Bureau, Haryana Chandigarh from 16.06.1999 to 02.03.2003. The petitioner was allotted promotion list 'F' on 07.08.2003. From 03.03.2003 to August, 2005, the petitioner was deputed in the office of DGP, Haryana and from the month of August, 2005 to 2007, he remained In-chage MOB and CRO in SCRB. For the period 2007 to 2012, the petitioner remained Incharge, MOB, Computer, Human Identification Wing and Publicity Wing, SCRB. Additional charge of Finger Print Bureau was also given to the petitioner in the year 2012 and thereafter, he was transferred from SCRB Madhuban to 1st IRB Bhondsi, Gurgaon on 25.05.2013.
4. While the petitioner was working in SCRB, Madhuban as In-charge, one woman Constable Neeru working under the petitioner, had given leave applications for making entry in the register. Due to some interpolation in the dates of the applications, her explanation was sought by the petitioner on 23.05.2013. Thereafter, the said Constable Neeru appeared before the ADGP/SCRB on 23.05.2013 and made some immoral allegations against the petitioner. An enquiry was got conducted by the ADGP through DSP, SCRB and in that enquiry report, the peti
Departmental proceedings can continue post-retirement, and acquittal in a criminal case does not exonerate an employee from departmental charges based on the same facts.
Disciplinary proceedings must adhere to principles of natural justice, ensuring proper inquiry and the summoning of all relevant parties.
Departmental proceedings must adhere to principles of natural justice, and acquittal in criminal cases does not preclude disciplinary action but requires proper evidence examination.
The delay in serving the charge memo, the relevance of the criminal case's outcome on departmental proceedings, and the similarity of charges in the criminal and departmental proceedings are crucial ....
Departmental proceedings must comply with established rules, requiring evidence and witness examination; failure to do so invalidates the proceedings.
Disciplinary proceedings must comply with principles of natural justice, including the examination of witnesses and the presentation of evidence; failure to do so renders the proceedings and any resu....
Judicial review of disciplinary proceedings focuses on the fairness of the process rather than the correctness of the outcome, ensuring compliance with natural justice.
The main legal point established is that an employee is entitled to pension and post-retiral benefits as per the initial order of compulsory retirement, and subsequent amendments denying such benefit....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.