Back
MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
Arvind Sharma – Appellant
Versus
State of M. P. – Respondent
ORDER
1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:
i. That the order dated 3.10.2024 Annexure P/1 may kindly be quashed and further reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits.
ii. Any other suitable order or direction deemed fit in the circumstances of the case be issued in favour of the petitioner."
2. Short facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Manager by the Society vide resolution dated 11.10.2006 which was confirmed by respondent No.3 vide order dated 29.11.2006. In the month of January, 2024, the respondent No.4 had appointed respondent No.7/Dilip Meravi on the post of Manager in the respondent/Society. Immediately, after his appointment, the respondent No.6 had issued six articles of charges to the petitioner as evident from Annexure P/4, dated 22.4.2024. After issuance of the charge-sheet, the petitioner duly submitted his reply to the aforesaid charges and denied the charges levelled against him therein. Thereafter, vide letter dated 3.8.2024 the Inquiry Officer/respondent No.8 had informed the petitioner to appear in the department
Judicial review of disciplinary actions is limited; courts cannot reappraise evidence or substitute their judgment unless findings are arbitrary or unsupported by evidence.
Judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited; courts cannot reassess evidence or interfere unless findings are arbitrary or unsupported by evidence.
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 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 court upheld the dismissal of the petitioner, emphasizing adherence to natural justice and the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings.
Fairness in disciplinary proceedings requires adherence to natural justice, and actions unsupported by adequate evidence are not sustainable.
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
