The Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a departmental penalty of stoppage of increments imposed on an ex-serviceman accused of assaulting a bank employee. The judge found the incident was admitted by the petitioner and the penalty was justified.
Petition and application dismissed; impugned orders upheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Date of Order: May 07, 2018
KRISHAN ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Yogesh Kumar Mathur, Advocate
Versus
MANAGER CANARA BANK AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Gautam, Advocate
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
O R D E R (ORAL)
“(1) The punishment of stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect has the effect to crush me
Page 1 of 3
W.P. (C) 4804/2018
financially. I was already under suspension for a period of around 6 months which has caused an immense financial hardship.
(2) I do not desire to digress in the matter. In view of submission made by me during the personal hearing, which was held on 21st Nov 2015.
(3) The imposed punishment will be too larger burden to carry. ”
W.P. (C) 4804/2018
Page 2 of 3
from „proceedings of personal hearing ’ (Annexure P-6) . Relevantly, the „proceedings of personal hearing ’ (Annexure P-6) have been signed not only by petitioner but also by his representative, who had defended him in the inquiry. It was clearly stated by petitioner, when personal hearing was afforded to him that the unfortunate incident had happened on the spur of the moment and he regretted it while assuring that it will not happen in future. Apart from this, even in appeal (Annexure P-3 colly.) preferred by petitioner, he has reiterated the afore-referred stand taken by him in the proceedings of personal hearing. In such a situation, reliance placed by petitioner’s counsel upon complainant’s medical slip to assert that there was no bleeding injury, is of no consequence. No plausible reason is forthcoming as to why complainant would falsely implicate petitioner. In fact, petitioner’s aforesaid plea remains unsubstantiated. 7. In the facts and circumstances of this case, I find that the penalty imposed upon petitioner is commensurate with the misconduct committed by him. In the considered opinion of this Court, impugned orders do not suffer from any vice of arbitrariness nor can it be said that the impugned orders are capricious.
(SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE
MAY 07, 2018
s
Page 3 of 3
W.P. (C) 4804/2018
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the penalty of stoppage of increments imposed on an ex-serviceman for assaulting a bank employee is commensurate with the misconduct.
Whether the impugned disciplinary orders suffer from arbitrariness or capriciousness under Article 14 of the Constitution.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Krishan
Manager Canara Bank and Ors.
Sunil Gaur
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
