Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
ANISH KUMAR GUPTA
Ram Swaroop Shukla – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.
1. Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Girijesh Kumar Tripathi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.
2. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner herein seeking quashing of the order dated 17.12.2009, passed by respondent no.3, whereby the services of the petitioner herein were terminated and also seeking quashing of the order dated 30.04.2010, whereby the appeal preferred by the appellant herein was dismissed by the respondent no.2.
FACTS
3. The brief facts of the case are the petitioner herein was appointed on the post of Lekhpal in the year, 1980 and in the year, 2008, he was posted in the area of Domagor of Tehsil and District- Jhansi. On 04.10.2008, an F.I.R. being Case Crime No. 686 of 2008 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 471, 477-A and 120B I.P.C. was registered at the behest of the Revenue Inspector, Shri Buddhi Prakash, making out the allegations that the petitioner has treated one Brij Kishore as dead and passed a mutation order in favour of Rajendra Singh and Hari Mohan. In the aforesaid case, after investigation a final report was submitted on 21.10.2008.
4. In the final
Disciplinary inquiry under 1999 Rules vitiated without oral hearing opportunity to delinquent, even absent proposed witnesses by either side, as implicit in rules for natural justice compliance.
The court established that an oral inquiry is essential in disciplinary proceedings, and its absence violates natural justice, invalidating any resultant punishment.
Rule 7(vii) provides that where charged government servant denies charges, enquiry officer shall proceed to call witnesses proposed in charge sheet.
The failure to follow prescribed inquiry procedures and principles of natural justice invalidates disciplinary actions against government servants.
Disciplinary proceedings must adhere to principles of natural justice, including the right to a fair hearing and the requirement for oral evidence. Failure to comply renders the proceedings and resul....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of evidence to prove charges in a disciplinary proceeding, the need for adherence to natural justice principles, and the entitle....
Disciplinary proceedings must adhere to procedural rules and principles of natural justice, ensuring the charged employee has the opportunity to defend themselves.
Disciplinary proceedings vitiated without oral evidence proving documents, even ex-parte; inquiry officer must independently assess evidence sufficiency as quasi-judicial authority, upholding natural....
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.
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
