Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
SANJAY DWIVEDI
Om Prakash Dhakad – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner questions validity of disciplinary orders. (Para 2) |
| 2. petitioner argues lack of evidence for misconduct. (Para 3 , 5) |
| 3. respondents justify disciplinary action based on payment delays. (Para 4 , 6) |
| 4. court analyzes appropriateness of disciplinary proceedings. (Para 7) |
| 5. judicial review limits in disciplinary matters emphasized. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 6. specific charges were substantiated by relevant evidence. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 7. court concludes that no grounds for interference exist. (Para 15) |
| 8. writ petition dismissed as meritless. (Para 16) |
ORDER :
SANJAY DWIVEDI, J.
Since pleadings are complete and counsel for the parties are ready to argue the matter finally, therefore, it is finally heard.
2. By the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is questioning validity of orders dated 26.07.2017 (Annexure P/6) and 04.07.2018 (Annexure P/9) passed by the Disciplinary authority as well as the Appellate authority whereby after issuing the charge-sheet and conducting departmental enquiry, punishment of removal from service was inflicted upon him. The petitioner is assailing the orders mainly on the ground that the
Disciplinary charges must be specific and substantiated by relevant evidence; decisions based on unrelated facts or surmises are unsustainable.
The charge of corruption requires to be proved beyond any shadow of doubt and to the hilt, and it cannot be proved on mere probabilities. The Authorities in a matter of disciplinary proceeding must c....
: Service – Punishment - once the charges levelled against the delinquent employee are proved then it is for the appointing authority to decide as to what punishment should be imposed on the delinque....
The judgment emphasizes the importance of considering the defence of the delinquent employee and recording reasons in decision-making processes, highlighting the obligation to adhere to principles of....
The court upheld the impugned punishment order as sustainable in the eyes of the law.
Disciplinary proceedings are invalid if based on prejudicial reliance on undisclosed inquiry reports and if initiated by an incompetent authority, infringing principles of justice.
The disciplinary authority must record its own findings and provide an opportunity for the delinquent employee to respond if it disagrees with the findings of the inquiry officer. The delay in initia....
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
