Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the penalty of removal from service imposed on a government servant, convicted for a simple offence, was excessive and liable to be interfered with in judicial review.
Analysis: Rule 19 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 empowers the disciplinary authority to consider the circumstances of the case where penalty follows conviction on a criminal charge, but it does not mandate dismissal in every such case. The authority must exercise its discretion fairly, justly and reasonably, having regard to the nature of the misconduct, the gravity of the offence, the employee's position, and whether the offence involves moral turpitude or a heinous act. The conviction here was for simple hurt, the sentence was reduced to fine, and the employee held the lowest cadre post. The punishment was therefore found to be disproportionate. The governing standard of review was also treated as one of proportionality rather than a mechanical application of Wednesbury unreasonableness.
Conclusion: The dismissal from service was held to be unjustified and excessive, and interference with the order was warranted in favour of the respondent.