Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
S. Ganesan – Appellant
Versus
Secretary to Government, Finance (T & A) Department – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to removal and change to compulsory retirement. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. insufficient evidence presented in the inquiry. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 3. evidence reviewed and disparate penalties noted. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. disciplinary proceedings and authority requirements. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 5. lack of evidence and order's legal sustainability. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 6. writ petition allowed and order set aside. (Para 21) |
ORDER :
HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.
The challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 20.04.2004 passed by the second respondent, whereby the petitioner was removed from service, and also to the order dated 28.02.2011 passed by the first respondent, whereby the order of removal from service was modified to one of compulsory retirement.
2. The petitioner, while serving as Accountant, Sub Treasury, Coimbatore, and Personal Superintendent, Pay and Accounts Office, Central Chennai, was issued with a charge memo dated 16.07.2001. The charge memo issued against the petitioner reads as follows:
Charge No.1
In connection with the fake bills listed in Serial No. 4 of Annexure 3, Sub-Treasury records, he failed to verify the specimen signature of the d
Disciplinary proceedings must adhere to procedural rules, and inconsistent penalties for similar offenses are impermissible under principles of natural justice.
The court ruled that disciplinary dismissals must adhere to natural justice and have sufficient evidence, particularly when severe penalties are imposed, as seen in cases of clerical errors.
The court emphasized that disciplinary actions must obey principles of natural justice, including evidence for charges and payment of subsistence allowance during suspension; non-compliance voids san....
Judicial review in disciplinary proceedings limited; interference warranted for procedural lapses and shockingly disproportionate post-retirement punishment.
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.
Disciplinary proceedings must adhere to principles of natural justice and require cogent evidence; failure of the authority to produce documents and examine witnesses invalidates the outcome.
Disciplinary proceedings quashed for defective charge memo without imputations, documents, witnesses; no departmental evidence or witnesses; perfunctory enquiry report lacking independent reasons and....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings and the authority of the disciplinary authority as the sole judge of facts.
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
