SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2013 Supreme(SC) 937

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, A.K.SIKRI
Deputy Commissioner – Appellant
Versus
J. Hussain – Respondent


Judgement Key Points

Question 1? Question 2? Question 3?

Key Points: - Penalty of removal for entering school premises in working hours inebriated constitutes serious misconduct; court refused to deem removal disproportionate (!) (!) - Disciplinary authority has discretion to fix punishment; judicial review cannot substitute its own view unless penalty is shockingly disproportionate or irrational (Wednesbury/proportionality) (!) (!) (!) - Appellate and judicial review scope: can remit to Disciplinary Authority for lesser punishment but cannot prescribe exact penalty; High Court’s direction to reinstate with limited benefits reversed; tribunal/CAA upheld removal (!) (!) (!)

Question 1?

Question 2?

Question 3?


JUDGMENT

A.K.SIKRI,J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The respondent herein was served with a charge memo dated 2/3rd August 2000 under the provisions of Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1965 and Rule 20 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1964. Primary allegation against him was that he had forcibly entered into the office of Principal of Kendriya Vidayala Sangthan, Tura in the State of Meghalaya, where he was posted and working as Upper Division Clerk. It was on 24.5.2000 at around 11.30 a.m. The respondent was in a fully drunken state.

The respondent in his reply admitted the incident, namely he entered the office of the Principal in that condition. However, according to him, he did not enter the office of the Principal forcibly. The respondent also offered his unconditional apology for consumption of alcohol and requested the Disciplinary Authority to take a sympathetic view of the matter and pardon him. The Disciplinary Authority went through the reply. Since the respondent had admitted the charge, it was felt that in view thereof, no regular enquiry was needed and on the basis of admission, the orders dated 31st August 2000 were passed, imposing the penalty o





















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top