Back
JUVVADI SRIDEVI
Y. Ramakrishna – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
ORDER :
This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioners, wherein, the following prayer is made:
2. I have heard the submissions of Sri P.Venkatesh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-II representing the respondents and perused the record.
3. The undisputed facts of the case
The absence from duty must be proven willful for it to amount to misconduct, and the penalty imposed must be commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct.
Habitual unauthorised absence, failure to comply with orders, and proportionality of punishment in disciplinary actions
The limited scope of interference to a punishment imposed pursuant to a departmental enquiry, barring a few exceptions, and the principle that re-appreciation of evidences is not permissible.
Absence due to compelling circumstances cannot be deemed willful; disciplinary authorities must prove willfulness for misconduct.
Judicial review in disciplinary proceedings is limited to ensuring compliance with natural justice and assessing evidence; the High Court does not act as an appellate authority.
The judgment emphasizes the limited scope of interference in the punishment order and the importance of considering willful absence and proportionality of punishment in disciplinary matters.
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
