Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.07 seconds)Bhaba Kalita vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 17 July, 2003
14. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the opinion that the
respondents have not committed any illegality while imposing
punishment upon the petitioner, even in the absence of such
representation. The petitioner had ample opportunity to seek the
aforesaid document at the earlier stages of the enquiry. His
decision to seek the same at the belated stage, when he was
directed to file representation, appears to be an attempt to delay
the proceedings by raising a frivolous ground of denial of
reasonable opportunity. Under these circumstances, the petitioner
cannot get benefit from his own inaction. While learned counsel
12
for the petitioner has relied upon Naba Kanta Kalita (supra) and
Ram Prakash Singh (supra) in support of his submissions, the
facts of the present case are clearly distinguishable and therefore,
these authorities are of no help to the petitioner.
Kamlesh Verma vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 12 April, 2022
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned
penalty was imposed by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Durg,
However, as per Rule 212 of the Jail Manual, the competent
Disciplinary Authority for initiating action against a Head Warder is
the Superintendent of Jail (Headquarters). He would refer to an
order dated 13.8.2024 passed by this Court in WPS
No.2578/2024 (Kamlesh Verma Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and
others). In the said case, the Court quashed a similar penalty of
stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect, holding that
Regulation 214 of the Chhattisgarh Police Regulations does not
provide for infliction of such penalty. Furthermore, the mandatory
requirement of submissions of brief was not followed in the
present case. This omission is in violation of the principles of
nature justice, thereby vitiating the entire enquiry. He submits that
Rule 212 of the Jail Manual enumerates the duties assigned to
Head Warders. In the present case, the allegations levelled
against the petitioner are not in consonance with Rule 212 of the
5
Jail Manual. As such, the charges levelled were in violation of
Rule 217 of the Jail Manual.
The State Of Punjab vs Nachhattar Singh(Dead) Thr. Lr. on 13 October, 2022
13. Reverting to the facts of the present case, in light of the principles
laid down in the aforesaid judgment, it is quite vivid that this case
involves a Domestic Enquiry along with a Magisterial Enquiry
regarding death of a prisoner during the petitioner's duty hours.
The petitioner did not demand the Magisterial Enquiry Report on
previous occasions. It was only after conclusion of the Domestic
Enquiry, when the petitioner was directed to file representation, he
sought the said report and this cannot be said to be a bonafide
request. The petitioners have failed to show any prejudice caused
to him by non-supply of the Magisterial Enquiry Report. Apart from
the Magisterial Enquiry Report, all other documents requested by
the petitioner were supplied to him. He was afforded a fair
opportunity of hearing during the course of enquiry and thereafter,
the punishment order has been passed, which was ultimately
affirmed by the Appellate Authority.
1