Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Vivek Kumar Birla, Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
State of U.P. – Appellant
Versus
Prem Chandra Verma – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J.
1. Heard Sri Ratan Deep Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for the State-appellants and Sri Ajay Kumar Singh Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-opposite party.
2. The present intra-court appeal is directed against the order dated 27.05.2024 passed by learned Single Judge of the Court in Writ Appeal No. 5001 of 2024 [ Prem Chandra Verma Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others ].
3. A perusal of the records of the case indicates that the writ petition had been instituted praying for a mandamus to be issued to the Joint Director, Technical Education, East Zone, Varanasi to implement the benefit of revised salary to the petitioner, in terms of memoranda dated 28.05.2022 and 07.07.2022 issued by the Director, Technical Education, U.P. and addressed to the Joint Director, Technical Education, East Zone, Varanasi, amongst others.
4. Before the writ court, it was contended that the emoluments payable to the petitioner in his capacity as Principal of a Government Polytechnic College had been revised in terms of Government Order dated 03.05.2018 and the consequential orders dated 28.05.2022 and 07.07.2022 issued by the Director, Technical Educ
Judicial review of disciplinary matters is limited, with courts respecting the wide discretion of disciplinary authorities unless procedural fairness is violated or penalties shock the conscience.
The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to principles of natural justice in disciplinary inquiries, asserting that findings must be supported by adequate evidence and fair procedures.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of interference in disciplinary proceedings, emphasizing the need for evidence-based findings and the principles of proportionali....
The main legal point established in the given judgment is the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary inquiries and the principles of proportionality and the Wednesbury rule.
The court held that disciplinary authority's punishment must be proportionate to the misconduct, and failure to adhere to natural justice principles can warrant judicial intervention.
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 findings in the criminal and departmental proceedings were based on the same set of facts, and acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically entitle the individual to relief in departmental....
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
