Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA
Union of India Thru Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs – Appellant
Versus
No. 913126828 Ex. Constable Driver Girwar Singh Tomar – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of disciplinary action (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. legal arguments regarding misconduct and punishment (Para 5 , 7 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. disciplinary proceedings under relevant laws (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. considerations for punishment proportionality (Para 17 , 18) |
| 5. legal standards for reviewing disciplinary decisions (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 6. consideration of respondent's superannuation and delay (Para 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 7. final judgment and ordered reinstatement (Para 28 , 29 , 30) |
JUDGMENT :
Kshitij Shailendra, J.
1. Heard Shri S.P. Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General of India assisted by Shri Vivek Kumar Singh, for the appellants and Shri V. K. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Ankur Azad, for the respondent.
2. The present appeal has been filed by the Union of India and its officers challenging the order dated 10.04.2007 whereby learned Single Judge allowed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5262 of 2001 (Constable Driver Girwar Singh Tomar vs. Union of India & others) setting aside the punishment order as well as appellate and revisional orders and remanded the matter back to the Disciplinary Authority to pass fresh orders in accord
Disciplinary punishment must align proportionately with the severity of the misconduct, and the courts can intervene if the penalty is grossly disproportionate.
Misconduct of misbehaving with superior/senior officer and of insubordination can be said to be a very serious misconduct and cannot be tolerated in a disciplined force like CRPF.
(1) It is disciplinary authority, or appellate authority in appeal, which is to decide nature of punishment to be given to delinquent employee – Keeping in view seriousness of misconduct committed by....
The court upheld the removal of a police constable for intoxication during duty, emphasizing the importance of discipline in law enforcement and the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary m....
Disciplinary authorities have the exclusive jurisdiction to impose penalties for proven misconduct, and courts should not interfere unless findings are irrational or arbitrary.
A disciplinary authority is empowered to impose dismissal under Section 11 of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949, and past conduct can be considered in determining the penalty for indisciplin....
The High Court does not act as an appellate authority in disciplinary matters and will not interfere with the quantum of punishment unless it is shocking to the conscience.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle of proportionality in imposing disciplinary action, the requirement for clear and specific charges in a domestic inquiry, and the sco....
Judicial review of disciplinary punishment is limited to cases where the penalty is shockingly disproportionate or perverse. Parity in punishment is not absolute; it must account for the delinquent's....
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
