Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
VIVEK RUSIA, GAJENDRA SINGH
Narayan Ojha – Appellant
Versus
Union of India through Ministry of Micro Small and Medium Enterprises – Respondent
ORDER :
1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is preferred challenging the order dated 15.04.2015 in O.A.No.798/2012 by Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur, Camp Indore seeking following reliefs:
7. (a) to call for the relevant records of the case from the respondents;
(b) to quash the impugned order dated 15.04.2015 (Annexure P/18) passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No.798/2012 preferred by the petitioner by a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order;
(c) allow this petition with costs;
(d) pass such other order(s) as may be deemed appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case to grant relief to the petitioner.
2. Facts in brief are that petitioner was initially appointed on the post of skilled worker-I on 15.07.1994 and discharged his duties sincerely, diligently and to best of his abilities on the post of Technician-I. While he was on leave from 26.07.2010 to 02.08.2010, a false and frivolous complaint was made by one Alok Sharma on 21.07.2010 which came to be received in the office of the respondent no.3 on 29.07.2010 along with another complaint made on similar line by one Ashok Kumar
Fairness in disciplinary proceedings requires adherence to natural justice, and actions unsupported by adequate evidence are not sustainable.
Judicial review of disciplinary actions is limited; courts cannot reappraise evidence or substitute their judgment unless findings are arbitrary or unsupported by evidence.
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 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 court upheld the dismissal of the petitioner, emphasizing adherence to natural justice and the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings.
Point of law: High Court is not a court of appeal over the decision of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry against a public servant. It is concerned to determine whether the enquiry is hel....
statement recorded in the preliminary enquiry, which are behind the back of the Applicant, and for which he had no opportunity to cross-examine them, cannot be used in regular inquiry, as the delinqu....
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
