om:104-cl-2014-sep — In disciplinary proceedings, the Tribunal / Court can interfere only if the findings are perverse and no interference in punishment is permitted by Court unless the punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of charges. The purpose of judicial review is to ensure that individual receives fair treatment

GDS Rules

In disciplinary proceedings, the Tribunal / Court can interfere only if the findings are perverse and no interference in punishment is permitted by Court unless the punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of charges. The purpose of judicial review is to ensure that individual receives fair treatment — O.A. No. 798 of 2006 is an order filed against the termination of a Gramin Dak Sewak's services following disciplinary proceedings. The Applicant argues that they were not afforded a fair opportunity... — Facts : The Applicant herein, a Gramin Dak Sewak was served with a Charge-Sheet on 14-5-2003. Assistant Superintendent of Post Office (West) Sub-division was posted as Enquiry Officer and one Surendra Kumar Singh was appointed as Presenting Officer. The enquiry report, an ex parte one as the Applicant was not present during the enquiry was forwarded to Applicant who submitted his reply on 20-2-2006. Acting on the enquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority by his order, dated 4-4-2006 terminated the services of the Applicant. Against that termination order this OA is filed challenging the same. The Respondents submit that the Applicant did not exhaust the alternate remedy of submitting representation against the termination order, to higher authorities in terms of Section 20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. On merit, the Applicant did not co-operate in the enquiry proceedings as he was not present during the enquiry even though he is aware of the proceedings. Hence the OA is to be dismissed. The Applicant submits that he was not afforded opportunity in the enquiry proceedings violating the principles of natural justice. One of the witnesses namely, Shri P.K.Singh is prejudicial to this case. Even though the Applicant requested to transfer P.K.Singh, it was not agreed to. The decision in the enquiry was taken ex parte. Shri. P.K.Singh influenced the enquiry Officer and the Applicant was not given opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and R.K.Singh. The Tribunal perused the enquiry proceedings and orders thereon by Disciplinary Authority. The Tribunal also noted the absence of the Applicant in the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer taking into consideration all points submitted his report. The Disciplinary Authority taking into consideration of all the points made by the witnesses and the enquiry report passed an order of termination of the Applicant. Based on the above, it was held.

om:104-cl-2014-sep — In disciplinary proceedings, the Tribunal / Court can interfere only if the findings are perverse and no interference in punishment is permitted by Court unless the punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of charges. The purpose of judicial review is to ensure that individual receives fair treatment

GDS Rules

In disciplinary proceedings, the Tribunal / Court can interfere only if the findings are perverse and no interference in punishment is permitted by Court unless the punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of charges. The purpose of judicial review is to ensure that individual receives fair treatment — O.A. No. 798 of 2006 is an order filed against the termination of a Gramin Dak Sewak's services following disciplinary proceedings. The Applicant argues that they were not afforded a fair opportunity... — Facts : The Applicant herein, a Gramin Dak Sewak was served with a Charge-Sheet on 14-5-2003. Assistant Superintendent of Post Office (West) Sub-division was posted as Enquiry Officer and one Surendra Kumar Singh was appointed as Presenting Officer. The enquiry report, an ex parte one as the Applicant was not present during the enquiry was forwarded to Applicant who submitted his reply on 20-2-2006. Acting on the enquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority by his order, dated 4-4-2006 terminated the services of the Applicant. Against that termination order this OA is filed challenging the same. The Respondents submit that the Applicant did not exhaust the alternate remedy of submitting representation against the termination order, to higher authorities in terms of Section 20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. On merit, the Applicant did not co-operate in the enquiry proceedings as he was not present during the enquiry even though he is aware of the proceedings. Hence the OA is to be dismissed. The Applicant submits that he was not afforded opportunity in the enquiry proceedings violating the principles of natural justice. One of the witnesses namely, Shri P.K.Singh is prejudicial to this case. Even though the Applicant requested to transfer P.K.Singh, it was not agreed to. The decision in the enquiry was taken ex parte. Shri. P.K.Singh influenced the enquiry Officer and the Applicant was not given opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and R.K.Singh. The Tribunal perused the enquiry proceedings and orders thereon by Disciplinary Authority. The Tribunal also noted the absence of the Applicant in the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer taking into consideration all points submitted his report. The Disciplinary Authority taking into consideration of all the points made by the witnesses and the enquiry report passed an order of termination of the Applicant. Based on the above, it was held.

Original Rule Text

Original Rule Text