Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Surat Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J.
Prayer
1. This writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 25.07.2000 (Annexure P/3) vide which increments without cumulative effect of petitioner have been stopped and he has been denied the salary for the period for which the petitioner had remained out of service as well as issue a further writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to grant the full back wages the period the petitioner remained out of service, alongwith other benefits and interest at the rate of 18% per annum.
Brief Facts
2. The petitioner was appointed as Helper Welder on 04.06.1976 through Employment Exchange on a regular basis in Haryana Roadways, Gurgaon Depot. On 17.11.1995, a false complaint was made against the petitioner by SSI Mr. Waryam Singh alleging overwriting in the attendance register, misbehaviour with officers, and late reporting by 1 hour and 30 minutes.
3. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was charge-sheeted on 05.01.1996 under Rule 7 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 (in short as 1987 Rules). The petitioner duly submitted his reply and a depar
The court found the punishment imposed on the petitioner to be shockingly disproportionate, emphasizing the necessity for procedural fairness and continuity of service after wrongful termination.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of interference in disciplinary proceedings, emphasizing the need for evidence-based findings and the principles of proportionali....
The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to principles of natural justice in disciplinary inquiries, asserting that findings must be supported by adequate evidence and fair procedures.
Judicial review of disciplinary actions is limited; courts do not interfere unless findings are perverse or punishment is shockingly disproportionate.
The disciplinary and appellate authorities must consider the petitioner's contentions and apply their minds when passing orders. The entitlement to back wages is discretionary and should be determine....
Reinstatement after wrongful termination entitles an employee to back wages unless the employer proves otherwise, even if a minor penalty like censure is imposed.
The disciplinary and appellate authorities must consider the petitioner's contentions in the proceedings and address them in their orders to ensure reasoned decisions and application of mind.
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
