Back
MANISH MATHUR
Pramod Kumar Verma – Appellant
Versus
U. P. State Bridge Corp. Thru. Chairman – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
MANISH MATHUR, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. Shashwat Chaudhary, learned counsel holding brief on behalf of Mr. Kumar Ayush, learned counsel for parties.
2. Under challenge is the order dated 15.03.2016 whereby punishment of censure and withholding of annual increment for a period of two years has been imposed along with recovery of Rs. 37,126. Also under challenge is the appellate order dated 24.08.2018.
3. Pleadings in the matter have already been exchanged.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that a charge sheet dated 02.04.2014 was issued to the petitioner containing a single charge with regard to certain constructions which were undertaken when petitioner was posted as Deputy Project Manager (Civil) in District Saharanpur. The primary ground of challenge against the aforesaid order is that although minor penalty was imposed against the petitioner but proceedings were initiated after issuance of charge sheet and therefore, the inquiry was required to be conducted in terms of Rule 35 of the Model Discipline and Appeal Rules for public undertakings as applicable in the U.P. State Bridge Corporation. It is further submitted that it would be evident
Disciplinary proceedings must adhere to established rules, and penalties cannot be imposed for uncharged allegations without proper justification.
Disciplinary proceedings must adhere to established rules, and findings must be based on charges explicitly stated; failure to do so renders the proceedings invalid.
The duty of the establishment to produce witnesses and evidence in departmental inquiries, especially in cases involving a major penalty, and the inadmissibility of hearsay evidence.
The court reaffirmed that disciplinary proceedings must strictly adhere to procedural requirements, including proper approval of chargesheets and the necessity of oral enquiries, to ensure fairness a....
The necessity for the employer to discharge their burden before the Inquiry Officer by leading documentary as well as oral evidence to prove the charges, particularly in cases likely to lead to the i....
Disciplinary inquiries must provide reasoned findings; failure to do so renders the inquiry invalid and the resulting penalties unsustainable.
In disciplinary proceedings, the employer must prove charges through evidence, including witness testimonies, especially when imposing major penalties, to ensure adherence to principles of natural ju....
The establishment has the burden of proving the charges against the delinquent employee by leading oral evidence, in addition to documentary evidence, in a disciplinary inquiry that may result in the....
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....
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
