Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
PULLA KARTHIK
Gangaram Shakati – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. promotion eligibility tied to disciplinary outcomes (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments against re-opening disciplinary proceedings (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. judicial review of disciplinary procedures (Para 12 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. delay in disciplinary proceedings as grounds for quashing (Para 17 , 18) |
| 5. writ petition allowed; remedies directed (Para 20) |
ORDER:
PULLA KARTHIK, J.
This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following reliefs:
(a) declare proceedings dated 26.10.2023 issued by the 3rd Respondent through which denovo enquiry is initiated as bad, illegal, belated, without jurisdiction, biased, without reasons, contrary to CCA rules, 1991, amounting to non-application of mind, draconic, unconstitutional
(b) to declare proceedings dated 27.07.2024 issued by the 3rd Respondent through which major punishment of stoppage of 1 increment with cumulative effect was imposed as bad illegal irrational unfair amounting to non-application of mind, amounting to relying upon 2nd enquiry officers report which is totally unsustainable, amounts to non-application of mind, non-speaking, without jurisdiction and unconstitutional
(c) to hold that the
The court held that re-opening disciplinary proceedings after significant delay violated procedural rules and principles of natural justice, leading to undue prejudice against the petitioner.
Disciplinary proceedings must adhere to principles of natural justice, including the right to cross-examine witnesses; failure to do so invalidates penalties imposed.
Point of law: The protracted disciplinary enquiry against a Government employee issued, therefore, be avoided not only in the interests of Government employee, but in the public interest and also in ....
Point of law: doctrine of laches in courts of equity is not an arbitrary or technical doctrine. Where it would be practically unjust to give a remedy either because the party has, by his conduct done....
The delay in conducting disciplinary proceedings after the retirement of the employee violates the principles of natural justice and fairness. Rule 28(b)(i)(14) of the KS & SSR allows notional promot....
The issuance of a Charge Memo by an unauthorized authority after undue delay is unsustainable, as negligible errors do not constitute misconduct.
Protracted disciplinary proceedings without valid justification, especially post-acquittal in criminal cases, constitute harassment and must be quashed.
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
