TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court reinstates removal of police officer for serious misconduct, upholding disciplinary actions</h1> <h3>State Of Meghalaya & Others Versus Mecken Singh N. Marak</h3> The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashing the High Court's judgment and reinstating the removal from service imposed on a police officer for serious ... Removal of respondent from service commensurate with the gravity of the proven misconduct Whether the competent authority was justified in removing the respondent from service? Whether the Division Bench of the High Court was right in remitting the matter to the Appellate Authority for passing appropriate order of punishment short of removal? Held that:- Appeal allowed. The High Court in this case, has not only interfered with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority in a routine manner but overstepped its jurisdiction by directing the Appellate Authority to impose any other punishment short of removal. By fettering the discretion of the Appellate Authority to impose appropriate punishment for serious misconducts committed by the respondent, the High Court totally misdirected itself while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226. The order passed by the competent authority removing the respondent from service is restored. Issues:Appeal against High Court's judgment setting aside removal from service and remanding for reconsideration of punishment.Analysis:The respondent, a police officer, was removed from service for serious misconduct involving loss of cash and service revolver. The Division Bench of the High Court set aside the removal, citing a mitigating circumstance of the respondent losing consciousness after accepting sweets from a co-passenger. However, the Supreme Court held that the High Court's interference lacked sufficient reasons and overstepped its jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority should be respected unless shocking to the conscience of the court. The respondent's breach of instructions, causing loss to the exchequer and risking misuse of the service revolver, warranted strict action due to his position of trust in a disciplined force. The Court reinstated the removal from service, highlighting the need for proportionate punishment in cases of serious misconduct by public servants. The judgment serves as a reminder of the limited scope for judicial review in disciplinary matters, especially when the punishment aligns with the gravity of proven charges.In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashing the High Court's judgment and restoring the removal from service imposed by the competent authority. The direction to reconsider the punishment was set aside, reaffirming the importance of upholding disciplinary actions in cases of serious misconduct by public officials. The Court emphasized the need for proportionate punishment in such cases, considering the nature of duties, integrity requirements, and potential societal impact. The judgment reiterates the principle of respecting disciplinary decisions unless they shock the conscience of the court, highlighting the limited role of judicial interference in such matters.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
