Service -- Misconduct - Compulsory retirement - Allegations of misproportion, disbursing loans irregularly made against appellant who was working as a Manager of Bank - Charges framed against appellant in departmental enquiry are serious and grave - However, inspite of proved misconduct of such serious charge, disciplinary authority itself was liberal in imposing..........
Service -- Punishment of dismissal from service - Allegation of corruption - Punishment of dismissal from service is far from disproportionate to charges of corruption, fabrication and intimidation which have unanimously been proven against appellant - Appellants actions would most probably have caused huge consequential losses to department concerned - Given the..........
Service -- Naval service - Misconduct - Substitution of punishment - Appellants alleged that Sailor is guilty of hitting his superior officer, therefore he is guilty of an offence u/s 45(a) of Navy Act - Commanding Officer who was on high seas with Sailor and superior officer was aware of extent of misconduct of sailor - However, none of three witnesses deposed regarding..........
Service -- Disciplinary proceedings - Misconduct - Charge of misconduct proved - Punishment imposed of stoppage of eight increments - Punishment imposed cannot be said to be disproportionate or arbitrary...........
Service -- Misconduct - Disproportionate punishment - Charge of availing hospitality from private company as his air fare when he is officially dealing with such company - However, such company not made any payments in fact payment was made by appellant - Inquiry officer was not right in holding that getting ticket booked through travel agent by said private company is..........
Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949, Section 11(1), Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955, Rule 27(a) -- Dismissal from service - Misconduct - Respondent admitted that incident occurred as a result of handling of weapon, that bullets were fired and death of his colleague occurred in consequence thereof - Disciplinary authority found that charge of misconduct was..........
Army Act, 1950, Section 30 -- Dismissal from service - Absence of 302 days without leave - Respondent admitted his absence without leave - However, he did not make any effort to apply for extension of his leave - Absence of 302 days from his duty by a member of Armed force cannot be condoned - Tribunal committed error in coming to conclusion that punishment of dismissal as..........
Defence Service -- Dismissal - Re-instatement by Tribunal - Validity - Charge of overstaying the casual leave - Respondent overstayed beyond causal leave period for around 1-1/2 years without informing either his superiors or nearest military station as to his whereabouts - Though respondent was charged for the first time, but it is a serious misconduct on the part of..........
Service -- Departmental inquiry - Dismissal from service - Judicial review - Courts while exercising their power of judicial review over matters of punishment, do not sit as appellate authority - Decision qua nature and quantum is prerogative of disciplinary authority - It is not the function of High Court to decide the same - It is only in exceptional circumstances, where..........
Service -- Departmental inquiry - Dismissal from service - Judicial review - It is not the function of High Court to impose a particular punishment even in those cases where it was found that penalty awarded is shockingly disproportionate - High Court at best, remand the matter to disciplinary authority for imposition of lesser punishment...........
