Back
MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, ANISH KUMAR GUPTA
Bhanu Pratap Singh Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Heard Sri Vijay Gautam, learned Senior Advocate assisted by learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner and Sri Fuzail Ahmad Ansari, learned standing counsel for the State-respondents.
2. The present intra-Court appeal is preferred questioning the validity of the impugned judgment and order dated 4.4.2024 in Writ-A No. 4148 of 2024 (Bhanu Pratap Singh Yadav v. State of U.P. and 4 others) passed by learned Single Judge, who has dismissed the writ petition on the ground of statutory alternative remedy of appeal under Rule, 20 of the U.P. Police Officers of the Sub-ordinate Ranks Punishment and Appeal Rules, 1991 (in short 'the Rules, 1991'). The said writ petition was preferred challenging the Removal from Service Order dated 25.2.2024 passed by the fourth respondent, who had awarded the punishment of major penalty to the petitioner, i.e. removal from his services under Rule 4(1)(a)(ii) of the Rules, 1991. It transpires from the record that the appellant-petitioner has also questioned the said Removal from Service Order dated 25.2.2024.
3. Sri Vijay Gautam, learned senior advocate states that the controversy in hand is no more res-integra and in support of his submissions, h
The Inquiry Officer must provide punishment recommendations separately from the inquiry report, ensuring adherence to procedural fairness and the exclusive jurisdiction of the disciplinary authority.
The enquiry officer exceeded authority by proposing punishment, which vitiated the enquiry report; only the disciplinary authority can impose punishment.
The disciplinary authority must independently assess penalties without undue influence from external advice, ensuring adherence to principles of natural justice.
Disciplinary authorities must adhere to procedural rules and principles of natural justice, relying solely on evidence presented during inquiries without seeking external opinions post-inquiry.
Dismissal from service matter - Rule 23 of Rules of 1991 clearly indicate that provisions of Revision are not mandatory in nature and are clearly at discretion of Officer whose appeal has been reject....
The court emphasized that a departmental inquiry must adhere to statutory procedures and principles of natural justice; failure to do so invalidates the resulting punishment.
Penalties not specified in service rules cannot be imposed, and employees must be given a hearing when disciplinary authorities disagree with inquiry findings.
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
