9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Petition for quashing order of dismissal from service, challenge to departmental inquiry findings, appeal and revision against dismissal orders, consideration of subsequent mercy petition and representation, delay in challenging orders, application of 'Wednesbury' principle, relevance of criminal acquittal in departmental proceedings.
Summary: Issue 1: Quashing of dismissal order The petitioner, an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking to quash the order dismissing her from service based on a departmental inquiry finding her guilty of accepting money for sending an individual to America. The dismissal order and subsequent appeal and revision were challenged, along with a mercy petition and representation for reinstatement. Issue 2: Departmental Inquiry and Dismissal Following an FIR and departmental proceedings, the Enquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty of the charges. The Senior Superintendent of Police dismissed the petitioner from service after providing her with a show cause notice and considering her written reply. The dismissal order was upheld in appeal and revision, with due consideration given to the statements of witnesses and defense witnesses. Issue 3: Challenge to Mercy Petition and Representation The petitioner's subsequent mercy petition and representation were dismissed, leading to the argument of delay in challenging the dismissal orders. The court noted that repeated representations do not extend the limitation period for challenging government orders, citing a Supreme Court judgment on the matter. Issue 4: Application of 'Wednesbury' Principle The court discussed the 'Wednesbury' principle, emphasizing that administrative decisions must be based on relevant material and not be unreasonable. In this case, the findings were based on relevant material, including witness statements, and the decision to dismiss the petitioner was deemed rational. Issue 5: Relevance of Criminal Acquittal The petitioner's acquittal in a criminal case was raised as an argument for reconsideration in the departmental proceedings. However, the court highlighted the different objectives of disciplinary inquiries and criminal prosecutions, concluding that the acquittal in the criminal case did not automatically result in exoneration in the departmental proceedings. In conclusion, the court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it, upholding the dismissal of the petitioner from service based on the findings of the departmental inquiry and subsequent legal proceedings.
|
