AJIT KUMAR
Amar Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Ajit Kumar, J.) :
Heard Sri Anil Kumar Mehrotra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Neeraj Tripathi, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri R.D. Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
2. Petitioner, who was working as Additional Private Secretary in the State Secretariat of U.P. has prayed for a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 7th September, 2020 passed by the respondent No. 2 terminating him from service.
3. Briefly stated facts are that petitioner had a Whatsapp group with is Mobile No. 9454410505 as an administrator. He claimed to have received a message on 6th July, 2018 on aforesaid mobile that ''UGC ds fu;e ls vkschlh vkSj nfyrksa ds fy, njokts fcydqy cUn gks pqds gSaA jkejkT; esa CM Bkdqj vt; flag ;ksxh vkSj DyCM iafMr fnus'k 'kekZ us tkfrokn [kRe djrs gq, xksj[kiqj fo'ofo|ky; esa 71 esa 52 viuh tkfr dks lgk;d izksQslj cuk;kA^^
Rajendra Upadhyay v. State of U.P. and others 2018(8) ADJ 686
Union of India and others v. J. Ahmed
Ram Kishan v. Union of India and others
Gohil Vishvaraj Hanubhai and others v. State of Gujarat and others
Pushpak Jyoti v. State of U.P. and others
Deen Dayal Shukla v. State of U.P. and others
Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. and others v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Lucknow and others
Union of India v. Sardar Bahadur
Narinder Mohan Arya v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and others
Government of India and another v. George Philip
Deputy Commissioner, KVS and others v. J. Hussain
State of Karnataka v. N. Gangaraj
Muzaffar Husain v. State of U.P. and others
Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and others v. B. Karunakar and others
Chandra Kishore Jha v. Mahavir Prasad
Haresh Dayaram Thakur v. State of Maharashtra
Delhi Administration v. Gurdip Singh Uban
Dhanajaya Reddy v. State of Karnataka
Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala
Prabha Shankar Dubey v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Ram Phal Kundu v. Kamal Sharma
Sirsi Municipality v. Cecelia Kom Francis Tellis
Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi
Krishna Rai (Dead) through legal representatives v. Banaras Hindu University and others
Indian Railway Company Ltd. v. Ajay Kumar
Mithilesh Singh v. Union of India
B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India
Damoh Panna Sagar Rural Regional Bank and another v. Munna Lal Jain
Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. N.B. Narawade
Bharat Forge Co. Ltd. v. Uttam Manohar Nakate
State of A.P. v. S. Sree Rama Rao
Inadequate inquiry procedures and disproportionate sanctions highlight the need for strict adherence to rules ensuring fairness in disciplinary actions against government employees.
The court upheld the dismissal of the petitioner, emphasizing adherence to natural justice and the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings.
The principles of natural justice require that a delinquent employee be given a copy of the preliminary enquiry report before the disciplinary authority arrives at its conclusions with regard to the ....
Fairness in disciplinary proceedings requires adherence to natural justice, and actions unsupported by adequate evidence are not sustainable.
Judicial review of disciplinary actions is limited; courts cannot reappraise evidence or substitute their judgment unless findings are arbitrary or unsupported by evidence.
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.
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....
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.