Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

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