Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Senior Civil Judge had allegedly threatened a police officer over a phone call in a complaint case filed against his sister.
“The precious time of this Court has been wasted in adjudicating this avoidable piece of litigation which the petitioner was compelled to initiate due to cause given by the respondents in blatant violation of law.”
“It is settled proposition of law that where no limitation period is prescribed, authorities are bound to act within reasonable period. The reasonable period depends upon facts and circumstances of each case, there is no hard and fast or straitjacket formula.”
“The then SP Datia has no regards for the law of land, and he is in habit of functioning as a Police Officer according to his own whims and wishes, thereby giving a complete go-by to the law of the land.”
“It is only in rare and exceptional cases that the Court may substitute its own view as to the quantum of punishment.”
“A disciplinary proceeding should not resemble a point-to-point bullet train journey. A charge memo need not necessarily culminate in punishment.”
“Recording of reasons in orders is equally important as giving an opportunity of hearing. The reasons in order means link between material which the forum considered while reaching the conclusion and reveals a rational nexus between the two.”
The Court noted that the report of Administrative Judge with regard to work and conduct of the petitioner was also without granting him an opportunity of being heard.
“While it is true that principles of natural justice supplement, and not supplant, the law, such principles have been declared by the Court to be a constituent feature of Article 14. Validity of any disciplinary action, whenever questioned, has to be tested on the touchstone of Articles 14, 16 and 21 as well as Article 311(2), wherever applicable.”
“Merely because the disciplinary authority has the power to order suspension, does not lead to the situation that he should be kept under suspension till the disciplinary proceedings are concluded.”
From the perusal of the reports received from State of West Bengal, it is observed that the petitioner was misusing his official position. The petitioner went to Kolkata without informing his seniors and without getting prior approval. He was posing himself as Gunman of purported President of District Congress Dal, Amritsar.
Supreme Court said that the High Court fell into grave error of law while interfering in the well-reasoned judgment rendered by the Tribunal whereby, the Tribunal had quashed the order imposing penalty upon the appellant.
Petitioner has taken a specific defence that his wife was seriously ill and was under medical treatment for a long time and ultimately, she passed away. The records of the departmental enquiry also suggested that the medical papers of the wife of the petitioner were duly placed on record. The enquiry officer failed to take this account to its proper perspective.
‘The reasoning given for a fresh inquiry was a mere lip service to the requirement of Rule 9(1) and was delightfully left in the realm of conjecture.’
The sealed cover procedure is to be resorted to only after issuance of the charge-memo/charge-sheet is issued.
By virtue of Rules 54(2) and 54(3), the petitioner is entitled to full pay and allowances for the period between 9-1-2020 to 29-9-2020 and his absence from service during the said period has to be treated as a period spent on duty for all purposes.
“Branding culture in the legal profession is detrimental to society. Ranking or providing customer ratings to lawyers is unheard of and demeans the ethos of the profession. Professional dignity and integrity must never be compromised especially in the legal profession.”
The Court was of the view there was no justification in approaching the Court to challenge the order of 2013 after a period of 5 years.
Supreme Court said that the officers of the Haryana Civil Service must be free from both ongoing and contemplated disciplinary proceedings to be eligible under Rule 9(1)(a)(iii).