Back
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
G. S. Kulkarni, Aarti Sathe, JJ
Rajinder Paul Bharadwaj – Appellant
Versus
Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of delayed departmental inquiry. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. petitioner's contentions on delay and procedural flaws. (Para 6) |
| 3. respondents justify delay and penalties per rules. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. unexplained delay vitiates entire disciplinary proceedings. (Para 12 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 5. vague, unsubstantiated charges cannot be sustained. (Para 13 , 14) |
| 6. inquiry report partly proved charges; evidence ignored. (Para 15 , 16) |
| 7. mechanical disagreement lacks independent reasoning. (Para 17 , 18) |
| 8. non-speaking orders unsustainable for lacking reasons. (Para 19 , 20) |
| 9. no specific misconduct under cda schedule ii. (Para 21) |
| 10. respondents' precedents distinguishable on facts. (Para 25) |
| 11. orders quashed; consequential benefits granted. (Para 26) |
JUDGMENT (PER: AARTI SATHE, J) :
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assails the departmental proceedings resulting in a punishment of reduction in rank imposed on the petitioner by the Appellate Authority’s order dated 13 April 2006. The short issue which arises for consideration is whether it was legal and valid for the respondents to hold a departmental inquiry against the petitio
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
