Karnataka HC Notices Sri Lankan Judge's Rights Plea
07 Mar 2026
Karnataka Proposes Social Media Ban for Under-16s
07 Mar 2026
Justice Dharmadhikari Sworn In as 55th Madras HC Chief Justice
07 Mar 2026
Punjab HC Acquits Ram Rahim in Journalist Murder
07 Mar 2026
Appellate Courts Can Rely on Unexhibited Public Documents Produced by Plaintiff: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Under Section 100 CPC
07 Mar 2026
Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
ANAND SHARMA
Rajendra Kumar Mangwani S/o Late Shri C. L. Mangwani – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Home Department – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT :
ANAND SHARMA, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 07.08.2001 issued by the Additional Director General of Police (Intelligence), Rajasthan, Jaipur cum Disciplinary Authority, whereby pursuant to disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner, penalty of removal from service has been enforced against the petitioner.
2. It is submitted that the petitioner was initially appointed on 08.11.1996 on the post of Sub-Inspector and on 23.11.1996, he reported for training at Rajasthan Police Academy. It is stated that the petitioner submitted applications for granting leave on the ground that his mother was not well. On account of illness of mother, the petitioner could not join the duties, consequently one charge-sheet under Rule 16 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification,
Disciplinary authorities must adhere to procedural fairness, including providing defense opportunities, failure of which can breach principles of natural justice, but penalties imposed for gross indi....
The court upheld the disciplinary authority's decision, affirming that the absence was willful and the disciplinary process was properly followed, emphasizing the limited scope of judicial review.
The court upheld the disciplinary authority's decision, affirming that the enquiry followed due process and that differing penalties were justified based on the conduct and service records of the inv....
A disciplinary authority is empowered to impose dismissal under Section 11 of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949, and past conduct can be considered in determining the penalty for indisciplin....
Judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited; courts may intervene if the penalty is shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct.
Judicial review in disciplinary proceedings is limited; High Courts cannot interfere with findings or penalties unless they are manifestly illegal or shockingly disproportionate.
Judicial review of disciplinary proceedings is limited to checking the decision-making process; courts cannot reassess evidence unless penalties are shockingly disproportionate.
The disciplinary authority's decision is upheld as the petitioner admitted guilt and the absence was not justifiable per service standards.
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
Listen Article