Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J
G. RAJENDERA KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana and another – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding procedure violations (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's reasoning on procedural adherence (Para 6 , 9) |
| 4. legal framework and rules governing disciplinary proceedings (Para 7) |
| 5. conclusion on petitioner's reinstatement and pension benefits (Para 10) |
ORDER :
1. This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner, wherein the following prayer is made:
“…..to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring that the impugned proceedings NO.3518/Admn/A2/2019, dated 27.01.2020 is in violation to the orders dated 06.01.2020 of the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad in W.P.No.241 of 2020, in violation of Rule 20 of TSCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991 and not giving opportunity to the petitioner to submit his further defence statement to Inquiry Officer’s report communicated to the petitioner in Memo No.3518/Admn/A2/2019, dated 27.12.2019 and not sustainable under law. Consequently set aside the impugned proceedings No.3518/Admn/A2/2019 dated 27.01.2020 and to pass such other order or or
The disciplinary authority must afford reasonable opportunities and consider all submissions before imposing penalties; failure to do so violates natural justice principles.
Disciplinary authorities must provide reasons for disagreeing with enquiry officer findings and issue a second show cause notice before imposing punishment, adhering to principles of natural justice.
The principles of natural justice require that a delinquent employee be given a copy of the preliminary enquiry report before the disciplinary authority arrives at its conclusions with regard to the ....
Point of Law : Speaking order dated has been passed in violation of mandatory procedure prescribed in Rule 9 of 1964 Rules and Subsidiary Rule 8[c] as well as in violation of principles of natural ju....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's scrutiny of the disciplinary proceedings, finding the charge to be a repeat attempt suffering from unexplained delay, and the failure o....
Point of law: Whenever an inquiring authority is to be appointed for conducting enquiry under the said rules, they are also requested to bring these instructions to the notice of their subordinates f....
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
