Back
KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR
Chandi Prasad – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Karunesh Singh Pawar, J.
Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sanjeev Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Chainman in Tehsil-Utraula, District-Balrampur. He, after attaining the age of superannuation, retired on 30.05.2004. During his service period, certain irregularities were found against him and disciplinary proceedings were initiated and finally vide punishment order dated 24.02.1993 disciplinary proceedings were concluded and petitioner was awarded following punishments:-
3. This punishment order was not acted upon and only on 21.05.2003 when the fact of the punishment given to the petitioner came in the knowledge of the authorities, the pay fixation was determined in view of the aforesaid punishment order and the petitioner was retired on 30.05.2004 and excess amount paid to him was recovered from his gratuity. After the delay of 11 years, against the aforesaid punishment ord
Penalties not specified in service rules cannot be imposed, and employees must be given a hearing when disciplinary authorities disagree with inquiry findings.
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.
The disciplinary authority must provide reasons for disagreement with the inquiry report, record its own findings on the charges, and provide the government servant with an opportunity to file a writ....
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.
The disciplinary authority must independently decide on inquiry reports without external influence, as mandated by the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999.
A valid departmental inquiry requires adherence to procedural safeguards, including the establishment proving charges through evidence, or it is deemed invalid.
Disciplinary proceedings must adhere to statutory procedures; failure to follow due process invalidates the punishment imposed on a government servant.
Natural justice requires meaningful opportunity for defense in disciplinary inquiries; failure to adhere justifies annulment of punitive orders.
Point of Law- The word “consider”, is of great significance. Its dictionary meaning of the same is, “to think over”, “to regard as”, or “deem to be”. Hence, there is a clear connotation to the effect....
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
