#Departmental Proceedings

Patna HC quashed a 75% pension cut, ruling departmental proceeding on 2006-09 allegations initiated in 2015 was time-barred under Rule 43(b) of Bihar Pension Rules and violated natural justice by ignoring defence and relying on ex-parte report.

A three-month limit on departmental suspension without statutory review is mandatory; exceeding it infringes Article 21 and renders the suspension void. The ruling protects Nagaland government employees from indefinite ‘deemed suspension’ while investigations are pending.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that imposing financial recovery and censure in departmental proceedings without considering the employee's reply or assigning any reasons renders the order void under natural justice. This sets a critical precedent for public employers: mechanical adoption of civil court awards cannot substitute for individualized, reasoned adjudication in disciplinary actions affecting service rights.

Bombay High Court quashed an FIR under IPC Sections 409, 420, 465, 468, and 471, ruling that continuing criminal prosecution after exoneration in departmental proceedings amounts to abuse of process. The judgment reinforces that parallel proceedings without fresh evidence violate principles of natural justice and fairness, offering relief to public servants facing dual proceedings for the same alleged misconduct.

The Allahabad High Court has ruled that a suspension order remains lawful even if the charge-sheet has not been served, provided the order clearly initiates a departmental enquiry and ensures expeditious disposal with subsistence allowance. This protects public servants from indefinite suspension while upholding administrative discipline, setting a critical precedent for departmental proceedings across state services.

Andhra Pradesh High Court holds that deferring a government employee's promotion based on pending disciplinary proceedings without framed charges is arbitrary and violates constitutional guarantees of equality and equal opportunity. The ruling mandates strict adherence to natural justice principles in service law disputes, impacting all government employees facing similar deferrals.

Jharkhand HC affirms that misappropriation of public funds by a bank officer justifies discharge, even with long service. The court held that repayment does not absolve misconduct, and judicial interference is unwarranted unless punishment shocks conscience. Banks and public sector employers gain clarity on disciplinary actions for financial misconduct.

CAT Ernakulam rules that the fundamental right to travel abroad under Article 21 cannot be restricted merely due to pending disciplinary proceedings under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules. The tribunal relied on the Supreme Court’s precedent in Satish Chandra Verma to affirm that personal travel leave cannot be denied without a substantive finding of guilt, impacting government employees facing similar procedural hurdles.

The Chhattisgarh High Court held that the Inspector General of Police lacks the competence to initiate common departmental proceedings against an Inspector, as only the Director General of Police - the sole authority empowered to dismiss such officers - may sanction such action under Rule 18. This clarifies hierarchical limits in police disciplinary processes and protects subordinate officers from unauthorized proceedings by lower-ranking officials.

Jharkhand High Court quashed the punishment of a police officer for alleged confessional statement irregularities, ruling that disciplinary action cannot sustain without statutory mandate or evidence linking the officer to misconduct. The judgment reinforces that departmental proceedings must adhere to principles of natural justice and evidentiary standards.

MP High Court quashes a 13-year-old departmental charge sheet, holding that inordinate delay, superannuation of inquiry officers, and lack of procedural progress violate principles of natural justice. The ruling reinforces that pending disciplinary actions cannot linger indefinitely, especially post-retirement, and sets a precedent for administrative accountability in service law.

Allahabad HC ruled that a police constable acquitted in a criminal corruption case cannot face parallel departmental proceedings under Regulation 493 of the U.P. Police Regulations. The court directed reinstatement with full salary arrears from the date of suspension, reinforcing that criminal acquittal is binding on departmental authorities.

Supreme Court reaffirms that courts cannot reappreciate evidence in departmental proceedings unless findings are perverse or based on no evidence. The ruling upholds dismissal of a police constable for fraudulently securing dual employment, reinforcing the limited scope of judicial review in service law matters.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court Gwalior bench has ruled that departmental proceedings against a public servant cannot be sustained merely because of private family disputes that led to criminal acquittal. This clarifies that personal conduct unrelated to official duties, even if controversial, does not constitute misconduct under the CCS Conduct Rules - protecting civil servants from punitive administrative action based on non-work-related acquittals.

Patna High Court sets aside termination orders of two police constables, ruling that administrative justice under Article 14 mandates uniformity when a coordinate bench has already reinstated co-accused in identical departmental proceedings. The decision underscores that inconsistent disciplinary actions violate equality principles, impacting all public servants facing parallel charges.