Order XLI Rule 23A CPC | Re-Trial Necessary When Crucial Parties Impleaded In Appeal: Telangana High Court Cannot Freeze Entire Bank Account For Small Disputed Sums: Rajasthan High Court Issues Comprehensive Guidelines Against Indiscriminate Account Freezes In Cyber Crime Probes 187(3) BNSS | No Extension Of Investigation Time Without Notice To Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Default Bail In NDPS Case Road Widening Under Master Plan Cannot Be Stalled For Formal Land Acquisition, Section 305 Permits Direct Removal Of Encroachments: Madhya Pradesh High Court P&H High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Over 45-Day Delay In Informing Detenu Of Right To Represent 'Sole Allegation Of Torture Cannot Stand Alone': Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Husband Under Section 498A IPC After Dowry Demand Disproved Seeking Corroboration To Victim's Testimony Amounts To Adding Insult To Injury: Bombay High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Offences Of Cheating & Criminal Breach Of Trust Cannot Coexist On Same Facts: Calcutta High Court Quashes FIR Over Commercial Contract Dispute "Accident Alone Is Not Proof": Delhi High Court Acquits Bus Driver In 2003 Road Fatality Case, Rules Mere Speeding Or Collision Insufficient For Section 304A IPC Mandate Of Regulations Must Be Read Into Public Notices: Kerala High Court Reverses Order Directing NMC To Reopen Portal For Medical College's PG Seat Hike Unproven 1946 Oral Sale And Subsequent School Gift Cannot Convey Valid Title Over Tribal Land: Orissa High Court Orders Compensation After 80 Years ED Can Probe Money Laundering In J&K Corruption Cases: J&K High Court Rules S. 5(1)(d) J&K PC Act Corresponds To Amended S. 7 Of Central PC Act Not Mere Lip Service: Supreme Court Quashes GST Notice Under Section 74 Lacking Foundational Facts Of Fraud Or Suppression Selling Manufactured Goods At Factory Premises Doesn't Turn 'Industrial' Land Into 'Commercial' For Stamp Duty: Supreme Court Supreme Court Orders All States To Form Dedicated SITs To Probe Fake Motor Accident Claims, Warns Insurance Top Brass Against Selective Referrals Port Trusts Not Immune From Customs Duty On Pilfered Goods: Supreme Court Upholds Notification Declaring Mumbai Port Trust As Custodian Under Section 45

Delhi High Court Remands Departmental Inquiry Penalty for Unauthorized Absence During Pandemic

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant verdict, the Delhi High Court, in a bench comprising of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, set aside the penalty imposed in a departmental inquiry against an employee for unauthorized absence during the COVID-19 pandemic. The court emphasized the need for the application of the doctrine of proportionality while imposing penalties in such cases.

The appellant had challenged the penalty imposed on him for his absence during the pandemic, citing special circumstances of quarantine and medical grounds. The court observed that the quantum of punishment must be reasonable and proportionate to the misconduct, taking into consideration the measure, magnitude, degree of misconduct, and all relevant circumstances.

"Penalty must not be grossly in excess of allegations. The principles of natural justice demand that disciplinary proceedings be conducted fairly and based on evidence," the bench noted in its judgement.

The court emphasized that during the pandemic, cases of unauthorized absence require sympathetic consideration, and penalties imposed should be assessed with consideration for compelling circumstances. The court's ruling follows its intervention based on the doctrine of proportionality, emphasizing that penalties imposed in such cases should not be disproportionate to the circumstances.

The bench also highlighted the importance of a fair departmental inquiry and the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters. The verdict sets a precedent by applying the doctrine of proportionality to remand the matter to the Disciplinary Authority for re-evaluation of the penalty.

This decision is expected to have far-reaching implications for cases of unauthorized absence during the pandemic and underscores the necessity of assessing penalties based on the unique circumstances surrounding the COVID-19 crisis.

Justice V. Kameswar Rao stated, "The penalty must be proportionate to the circumstances and not grossly in excess of the allegations. In cases of unauthorized absence during the pandemic, the compelling circumstances of quarantine and medical grounds must be taken into account."

Legal experts have praised the High Court's ruling, hailing it as a fair and balanced approach that considers the challenges faced by individuals during the unprecedented circumstances of the pandemic.

The court referred to the importance of the doctrine of proportionality in disciplinary proceedings, reminding authorities to ensure a just balance between the gravity of the misconduct and the penalties imposed.

Date of Decision: 17th August 2023

SANDEEP KUMAR YADAV vs GNCT OF DELHI & ORS.

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Sandeep_Kumar_Yadav_vs_Gnctd_Ors_on_17_August_2023_DelHC.pdf"]

Latest Legal News