AJIT KUMAR
Nahar Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Ajit Kumar, J.
Heard Sri Nisheeth Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.S. Umrao, learned Standing Counsel.
2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order firstly by the disciplinary authority dated 26.06.2019, whereby, petitioner has been reverted back by five years to the minimum of the pay scale of a Constable, the order of the appellate authority dated 04.05.2020 affirming the same and of the revisional authority dated 17.11.2020 rejecting the revision on the ground that there is no procedural flaw in the matter of disciplinary proceedings.
3. The facts in a narrow compass can be drawn like this that the petitioner was issued with a charge sheet for remaining absent from duty w.e.f. 05.06.2002. He was proceeded against by holding a disciplinary proceeding and conducting departmental inquiry as a part thereof and since he was found guilty of the charges, he was issued with show cause notice on 01.04.2003 which was caused to be served upon him through his wife Smt. Sunita Yadav on 23.04.2003, however, when no reply was received from the petitioner, the disciplinary authority proceeded to inflict punishment of removal from service for being absent w.e.f. 05.06.2000 t
B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India
Bank of India v. Degala Suryanarayana
Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D. Ed.) (2013) 10 SCC 324
High Court of Judicature at Bombay v. Shashikant S. Patil
Jayantibhai Raojibhai Patel v. Municipal Council, Narkhed
State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur v. Nemi Chand Nalwaya
State of Andhra Pradesh v. Chitra Venkata Rao
State of Andhra Pradesh v. S. Sree Rama Rao
State of Haryana v. Rattan Singh (1977) 2 SCC 491
State of Karnataka v. N. Gangaraj
Union of India v. Diler Singh (2016) 13 SCC 71
Union of India v. Dwarka Prasad Tiwari (2006) 10 SCC 388
The Court emphasized that while past conduct can influence punishment, it cannot serve as the sole basis for dismissal without it being specifically charged and substantiated.
The court affirmed the validity of disciplinary proceedings and the imposition of removal from service for unauthorized absence, emphasizing adherence to procedural safeguards and the appellant's fai....
Habitual absenteeism in a disciplined force can justify the imposition of a major penalty like dismissal from service, and such penalty may not be considered disproportionate to the allegations.
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.