IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.Sathish Kumar, M.Jothiraman, JJ
State of Tamil Nadu – Appellant
Versus
Senthamil Selvan – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of facts regarding disciplinary proceedings and the impugned order. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. disciplinary authorities require specific evidence to deviate from an enquiry officer's findings. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.)
The present writ appeal has been filed challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the punishment imposed upon the writ petitioner pursuant to disciplinary proceedings was set aside.
2.The writ petitioner was issued with a charge memo for three charges, namely, (i) unauthorized absence for a period of 12 days; (ii) conducting an audit meeting without obtaining prior permission; and (iii) failure to submit the audit report within the stipulated time. Upon completion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer found that Charge Nos.1 and 3 were not proved and held only Charge No.2 to be proved. However, the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of two years without cumulative effect, taking into account Charge Nos.2 and 3. Aggrieved thereby, the writ petitioner approached this Court by filing the writ petition.
3.The learned Single Judge fi
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.