Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Alok Mathur, J.
Dineshwar Mishra – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. Govt. Lko. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of allegations against petitioner (Para 3) |
| 2. petitioner's argument on procedural violation (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. standing counsel's defense of disciplinary authority (Para 12) |
| 4. court's consideration of disciplinary authority's actions (Para 13) |
| 5. court's ruling on reliance on external opinion (Para 14 , 15) |
| 6. court's decision to quash punishment (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
JUDGMENT :
Alok Mathur, J.
1. Heard Sri Surya Mani, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Standing counsel for the respondent.
2. With the consent of the parties, the petition is being decided at the admission itself.
3. The petitioner has approached this court being aggrieved by the order dated 23.9.2024 passed by Principal Secretary, Sugar Cane Department thereby inflicting punishment of stoppage of two increments permanent, and also giving a censure entry to the petitioner.
4, Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged that the procedure adopted by the respondents while inflicting punishment on the petitioner is in gross violation of Uttar Pradesh Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the
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 mandatory nature of the procedure under Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999 in disciplinary proceedings and the requirement to adhere to natural justice principles.
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....
It is not merely the duty of the inquiry officer to comply with the Rule 7 but also the duty of the punishing authority, while passing order of punishment, to ensure that the inquiry is conducted as ....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for disciplinary authorities to base their findings on cogent reasons, seek explanation before inflicting major penalty, and pro....
Service Law – Setting aside of punishment imposed justified - Objective of reasons to be recorded under Rule 9(4) mandatory if not recorded is fatal
A mere error in jurisdiction without evidence of misconduct or personal gain cannot be termed as misconduct, making the employee liable to disciplinary proceedings.
Penalties not specified in service rules cannot be imposed, and employees must be given a hearing when disciplinary authorities disagree with inquiry findings.
Disciplinary authority cannot order de novo inquiry on same charges after first inquiry report without following Rule 9 procedure of remitting for further inquiry or providing report with disagreemen....
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
