HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW
INDRAJEET SHUKLA
Ramesh Chandra Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. Through The Secy. Home – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's unauthorized absence from service. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 8 , 10 , 11) |
| 2. arguments pertaining to due process and justification of absence. (Para 12 , 13 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 3. court's analysis of compliance with procedural norms. (Para 14 , 32 , 39 , 41 , 46) |
| 4. legal standards for punitive action in service matters. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 52 , 62 , 63) |
| 5. conclusion and directions for reconsideration of punishment. (Para 64 , 65 , 66) |
JUDGMENT :
INDRAJEET SHUKLA, J.
For the convenience of exposition, this judgment is divided into the following parts:-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
| SL.No. | Heading |
|---|---|
| A. | FACTUAL MATRIX |
| B. | AVAILABILITY OF ALTERNATIVE REMEDY |
| C. | SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER |
| D. | SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF STATE RESPONDENTS |
| E. | RELEVANT RULES |
| F. | ANALYSIS AND REASONING |
| G. | CONCLUSION |
1. Heard Sri Ajai Krishna Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Dev Prakash Mishra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel representing the State respondents.
2. By means of present writ proceedings, the petitioner has set up challenge to the impugned order dated 14.04.2000 passed by 4th respondent removing the petitioner from service contained as Annexure-1 to this w







Krushna Kant B. Parmar Vs. Union of India and another
Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. T.T. Murali Babu
Railways v. Rajendra Kumar Dubey
Chhel Singh v. M.G.B. Gramin Bank Pali & others
Central Industrial Security Force and others Vs. Abrar Ali
State of U.P. vs. Singhara Singh and others
State of U.P. and others v. Saroj Kumar Sinha
Mirza Barkat Ali v. Inspector General of Police Allahabad and others
The Court emphasized that while past conduct can influence punishment, it cannot serve as the sole basis for dismissal without it being specifically charged and substantiated.
Disciplinary actions must follow due process, and absence due to illness cannot be deemed willful misconduct without proper inquiry.
Unauthorized absence from duty must be proven willful to constitute misconduct; penalties must be proportionate to the offense and consider the employee's service record.
The doctrine of proportionality must be applied in determining the proportionality of punishment in disciplinary proceedings, and the punishment must be commensurate with the fault committed.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.