ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY versus THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, SSB AND OTHERS

ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY versus THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, SSB AND OTHERS

The Division Bench and this Court held that the Single Judge erred in interfering with the disciplinary authority’s imposition of removal from service. The misconduct of entering the Mahila Barrack at midnight by a male Head Constable was grave and not comparable to the female constable’s misconduct; the punishment...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Anil Kumar Upadhyay; Respondent: The Director General, SSB and others
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
20 April 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment of the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Disciplinary Proceedings, Removal From Service, Proportionality, Judicial Review, Wednesbury Principle
Service Law Administrative Law Disciplinary Proceedings Removal From Service Proportionality Judicial Review Wednesbury Principle

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anil Kumar Upadhyay

Appellant

The Director General, SSB and others

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment of the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Single Judge was justified in interfering with the punishment of removal from service on the ground of disproportionate punishment because a co-accused received a lesser punishment
  2. 2 Whether the punishment of removal from service was disproportionate to the proved misconduct of entering the Mahila Barrack at night by a Head Constable

Ratio Decidendi

The Division Bench and this Court held that the Single Judge erred in interfering with the disciplinary authority’s imposition of removal from service. The misconduct of entering the Mahila Barrack at midnight by a male Head Constable was grave and not comparable to the female constable’s misconduct; the punishment was within the disciplinary authority’s discretion and not disproportionate under the applicable Wednesbury/proportionality standards, so the appeal is dismissed and the removal from service stands.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Order of punishment of removal from service restored