Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
SUJOY PAUL, RENUKA YARA
State of Telangana – Appellant
Versus
G. Sabitha – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Sujoy Paul, A.C.J.
Mr. Prasen Gundavaram, learned counsel representing Sri B.Vara Prasada Rao, learned counsel for the appellants.
Mr. A.Rajendra Babu, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard finally.
3. This intra Court appeal takes exception to the order dated 20.06.2023 passed in W.P.No.5141 of 2013.
Brief facts of the case:
4. The brief facts for adjudication of this matter are that the respondent (writ petitioner) was initially appointed on daily wage basis in November, 1982. She was regularized as Helper (Technical) with effect from 01.11.1988. She is a physically handicapped person having 55% disability. She rendered thirty years of service with appellant No.2 – department (hereinafter referred to as, “the department”). The department issued a show cause notice dated 17.07.2012 to the respondent asking her explanation on the ground that the School Transfer Certificate produced by her was not genuine. Thereafter, a charge sheet dated 04.08.2012 containing similar charge was issued to her. The respondent filed her reply on 14.08.2012 and denied the charge in toto. Dissatisfied with the reply of the
A disciplinary action cannot rely solely on unverified documents, requiring witness testimony to substantiate evidence in proceedings.
Non-examination of witnesses to prove documents in a departmental proceeding violates the principle of natural justice and renders the entire proceeding and enquiry vitiated.
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....
No pay cannot be applied to the present facts of the case, since the petitioner did not attend to work on account of illegal order of suspension and dismissal from service, passed by the appellants h....
The court refused to remit the matter for a de novo enquiry due to the prolonged duration of the disciplinary proceedings and the impending retirement of the appellant. The punishment imposed was fou....
Disciplinary proceedings quashed for defective charge memo without imputations, documents, witnesses; no departmental evidence or witnesses; perfunctory enquiry report lacking independent reasons and....
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
