Back
ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, OM PRAKASH SHUKLA
Dharmendra Mishra – Appellant
Versus
U. P. State Public Services Tribunal – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Om Prakash Shukla, J.
1. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner, Dharmendra Mishra, assailing the judgment/order dated 20.03.2018 passed by the State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”), whereby the claim petition No. 137 of 2016 filed by the petitioner against the order of punishment/ dismissal dated 12.05.2015 and appellate order dated 30.11.2015, has been dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that in the year 2005, the petitioner was posted as Constable in 32nd Battalion, P.A.C., Lucknow. On 15.05.2015, he had gone to his home after getting the Earned Leave of fifteen days sanctioned i.e. till 01.06.2005, however, he came back on his duty on 04.06.2005 instead of 01.06.2005. Thereafter, on 25.06.2005 again, he had gone to his home after getting the Earned Leave of twenty days sanctioned i.e. till 25.06.2005, however, he did not report for duty on 25.06.2005. On account of the absence from duty, he was placed under suspension vide order dated 14.02.2006 and an inquiry was instituted against him. A charge-sheet was issued against him, however, it was alleged
Delay in disciplinary proceedings does not ipso facto vitiate the enquiry; the authority retains the power to extend time limits set by the Tribunal.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the application for leave to pass final order in the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner was filed in a sheer illegal, arbitrary, ....
Court-fixed timeline for disciplinary proceedings revokes suspension on expiry but permits continuation; punishment vitiated if show-cause reply ignored – Remit for fresh order on technical grounds.
Employer must seek an extension of time if the inquiry is not concluded within the time fixed by the Court, and the Court has the jurisdiction to extend the time in the interest of justice and public....
Time frames set by courts for inquiries are procedural; failure to meet them does not invalidate proceedings unless specific consequences are stated.
Point of law: The protracted disciplinary enquiry against a Government employee issued, therefore, be avoided not only in the interests of Government employee, but in the public interest and also in ....
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
