Delay in Test Identification & Absence of Motive Fatal to Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man for Murder Tokre Koli or Dhor Koli – Both Stand on Same Legal Footing: Bombay High Court Slams Scrutiny Committee for Disregarding Pre-Constitutional Records Consent Is No Defence When Victim Is Under 16: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Granting Pre-Arrest Bail in Minor Rape Cases Would Send a Harmful Societal Signal: Delhi High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail to Accused Citing POCSO’s Rigorous Standards Void Marriage No Shield Against Cruelty Charges: Karnataka High Court Affirms Section 498A Applies Even In Deceptive and Void Marital Relationships Consolidation Authorities Cannot Confer Ownership Or Alter Scheme Post Confirmation Without Due Process: Punjab & Haryana High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Jurisdiction Over Void Post-Scheme Orders Daughter’s Right Extinguished When Partition Effected Prior to 2005 Amendment: Madras High Court Trial Courts Cannot Direct Filing of Challan After Conviction — Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Directions Against DSP Veer Singh Rule 4 Creates Parity, Not a Parallel Pension Pipeline: Rajasthan High Court Denies Dual Pension to Ex-Chief Justice Serving as SHRC Chairperson Right to Be Heard Must Be Preserved Where Claim Has a Legal Basis: Orissa High Court Upholds Impleadment of Will Beneficiary in Partition Suit Long-Term Ad Hocism Is Exploitation, Not Employment: Orissa High Court Orders Regularization Of Junior Typist After 25 Years Of Service PIL Cannot Be a Tool for Personal Grievances: Supreme Court Upholds Municipal Body’s Power to Revise Property Tax After 16 Years Omission of Accused’s Name by Eyewitness in FIR is a Fatal Lacuna: Supreme Court Acquits Man Convicted of Murder Correction In Revenue Map Under Section 30 Isn’t A Tool To Shift Plot Location After 17 Years: Supreme Court Quashes High Court’s Remand Casteist Abuses Must Be In Public View: Supreme Court Quashes SC/ST Act Proceedings Where Alleged Insults Occurred Inside Complainant’s House Resignation Bars Pension, But Not Gratuity: Supreme Court Draws Sharp Line Between Voluntary Retirement and Resignation in DTC Employee Case

Delhi High Court Upholds Disciplinary Action Against Coast Guard Personnel for Unauthorized Absence and Misconduct

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment delivered on February 8, 2024, the Delhi High Court, comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Saurabh Banerjee, dismissed a writ petition filed by Krishna Dixit, a Navik in the Indian Coast Guard. The Court upheld the disciplinary actions taken against him for unauthorized absence and alleged misconduct, underlining the importance of discipline and adherence to rules in the armed forces.

The pivotal legal issue in W.P.(C) 1113/2019 was the challenge against the summary trial and subsequent punishments imposed on the petitioner under the provisions of the Indian Coast Guard Act, 1978.

The petitioner, Krishna Dixit, faced charges of Absence Without Leave (AWOL) and theft of the Ship’s Imprest Accounts Register while posted on ICGS Amogh. Following a summary trial, he was subjected to detention, salary deductions, and other penalties. Dixit's petition contested these actions, alleging false implication and procedural flaws.

The Court meticulously examined the submissions and evidence, finding no merit in Dixit's claims. Justice Saurabh Banerjee remarked, “The said act of the petitioner cannot be atoned,” underscoring the non-negotiable nature of discipline in the armed forces. The Court observed that Dixit's absence was unauthorized and his defense concerning the theft charges unconvincing. It was concluded that the disciplinary measures were appropriately executed in accordance with the Indian Coast Guard Act.

The judgment reinforced the principles of the Indian Coast Guard Act, 1978, particularly emphasizing the criticality of maintaining discipline within the armed services. The Court, while acknowledging the need for unbiased and fair inquiry in disciplinary proceedings, found no evidence of malice or bias in the present case.

The petition was dismissed, affirming the disciplinary actions against Dixit. The Court observed that the penalties imposed were relatively lenient given the seriousness of the offenses. The verdict reflects the judiciary's support for strict adherence to discipline and conduct regulations in the armed forces.

Date of Decision: February 08, 2024

Krishna Dixit Vs. Union of India and Ors.

 

Latest Legal News