Back
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, VINAY SARAF
Nirbhay Singh Suliya – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
ORDER
Saraf, J -- 1. Petitioner who was working on the post of Additional District Judge has preferred the present writ petition assailing the order of punishment dated 2.9.2014, whereby the Petitioner was removed from the service by High Court of M.P., Jabalpur after conducting the departmental enquiry. The Petitioner has also assailed the legality and validity of the order passed by the State of M.P. in appeal on 17.3.2016 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected.
2. FACTS OF THE CASE
Brief facts suffice for disposal of the present petition are as under :
2.1 Petitioner/delinquent was appointed as Civil Judge, Class II on 31.10.1987 and was posted at Khandwa.
2.2 Thereafter, the Petitioner was promoted as Chief Judicial Magistrate and later on promoted after due selection as member of M.P. Higher Judicial Service at Entry Level in the month of May, 2011 and was posted as Additional District & Sessions Judge, Khargon.
2.3 On 12.8.2011, one Jaipal Mehta made a complaint against the Petitioner alleging that Petitioner has indulged in corruption activities with the support of Stenographer, Anil Joshi particularly in the matters of deciding bail applications arising out
Judicial officers cannot be penalized merely for error in judgment; substantial evidence of misconduct is necessary for disciplinary action, reinforcing the duty to protect judicial independence.
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.
Judicial review of disciplinary actions emphasizes fairness of the inquiry and proportionality of punishment, allowing modification from removal to compulsory retirement when circumstances warrant.
Fairness in disciplinary proceedings requires adherence to natural justice, and actions unsupported by adequate evidence are not sustainable.
The court does not act as a Court of appeal in departmental proceedings and considers the conduct of the appellant before and after the punishment order.
Judicial review of disciplinary proceedings is limited to evaluating the inquiry process's fairness, with the onus generally on the authority to establish charges against the employee.
Disciplinary action necessitates adherence to statutory rules, including providing a disagreement note when diverging from inquiry findings, as failure to do so violates principles of natural justice....
The court emphasized the importance of maintaining discipline and the requirement to prove prejudice in cases of non-serving of enquiry report, affirming the authority's discretion in disciplinary pr....
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
