Minor in Live-In Relationship Deemed 'Child in Need of Care' by High Court, Protection Ordered Under Juvenile Justice Act Cheque Signed, Sealed, and Bounced – No Escape from Liability: Delhi High Court Right to Defend Includes Right to Inspect Documents: Calcutta High Court Overrules Trial Court's Rejection of Inspection Petition Court Cannot Tinker with Finalized Consolidation Scheme Under Section 42: Punjab and Haryana High Court Remarriage During Appeal Period is Risky, But Not Void: Andhra Pradesh High Court State Cannot Sleep Over Its Rights: Supreme Court Criticizes Odisha Government for Delayed Appeals in Pension Dispute “Both Hands Intact” Rule is a Relic of the Past: Supreme Court Grants MBBS Admission to Disabled Student Terminal Benefits and Family Pension Alone Do Not Bar Compassionate Appointment, But Financial Distress Must Be Proven – Supreme Court Cruelty Under Section 498A IPC Is Not Limited to Dowry Harassment: Supreme Court Right to Speedy Trial Cannot Be Defeated by Delay Tactics: Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Fast-Tracking of Cheque Bounce Case Framing Charges Under Section 193 IPC Without Following Section 340 CrPC is Illegal: Calcutta High Court Doctrine of Part Performance Under Section 53-A TPA Not Applicable Without Proof of Possession: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mere Allegations of False Implication Cannot Override Strong Forensic and Documentary Evidence: Delhi High Court Upholds Conviction in Elderly Woman’s Murder and Robbery Case Applicant Not a Sexual Predator, Relationship Was Consensual: Bombay High Court Grants Bail in POCSO Case Fraudulent Transfers to Evade Creditors Cannot Escape Scrutiny: Punjab & Haryana High Court Restores Execution Petition Gujarat High Court Rules That Contractual Employees Cannot Claim Regularization of Services Serious Charges and Victim’s Suicide Justify Continued Detention: Gauhati High Court Denies Bail in POCSO Case No Permanent Establishment in India, Rejects Notional Income Taxation: Delhi High Court Rules in Favor of Nokia OY Statutory Bail Under NDPS Act Can Be Denied If FSL Report Reaches Court Before Bail Plea": Calcutta High Court Termination After Acquittal is Unjust: Bombay High Court Quashes Dismissal of Shikshan Sevak, Orders 50% Back Wages Denial of MBBS Seat Due to Administrative Lapses is Unacceptable": Andhra Pradesh High Court Awards ₹7 Lakh Compensation to Wronged Student Sessions Court Cannot Reclassify Non-Bailable Offences While Granting Anticipatory Bail: Allahabad High Court

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"]

Similar News