VED MITIER GILL versus UNION TERRITORY ADMINISTRATION, CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS

VED MITIER GILL versus UNION TERRITORY ADMINISTRATION, CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS

The Supreme Court held that all parameters for invoking clause (b) to the second proviso of Article 311(2) were satisfied: the delinquency warranted dismissal, it was not reasonably practicable to hold departmental enquiry due to the nature of the accused and likely hostility or fear among witnesses, and the authority recorded reasons for satisfaction in writing. Therefore, the punishment of dismissal was fully justified given the responsibilities and lapses of the jail staff.

Parties
Appellant: Ved Mitter Gill; Respondents: Union Territory Administration, Chandigarh and Others; Petitioner: Dalbir Singh Sandhu; Petitioner: Paramjit Singh Rana; Petitioner: Nishan Singh; Petitioner: Inder Singh
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
26 March 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Appeal
Outcome
Appeals and transferred cases dismissed
Legal Topics
Article 311(2) Second Proviso Clause (b), Dismissal From Service Without Departmental Enquiry, Jail Staff Responsibilities
Constitutional Law Service Law Article 311(2) Second Proviso Clause (b) Dismissal From Service Without Departmental Enquiry Jail Staff Responsibilities

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ved Mitter Gill

Appellant

Union Territory Administration, Chandigarh and Others

Respondents

Dalbir Singh Sandhu

Petitioner

Paramjit Singh Rana

Petitioner

Nishan Singh

Petitioner

Inder Singh

Petitioner

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India was properly invoked to dismiss the appellant and petitioners without departmental enquiry
  2. 2 Whether satisfaction and reasons were properly recorded by the competent authority under Article 311(2)
  3. 3 Whether punishment of dismissal was justified given the responsibilities and lapses of the jail staff

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that all parameters for invoking clause (b) to the second proviso of Article 311(2) were satisfied: the delinquency warranted dismissal, it was not reasonably practicable to hold departmental enquiry due to the nature of the accused and likely hostility or fear among witnesses, and the authority recorded reasons for satisfaction in writing. Therefore, the punishment of dismissal was fully justified given the responsibilities and lapses of the jail staff.

Court Disposition

Appeals and transferred cases dismissed

Orders

  • Dismissal orders from service upheld
  • No relief granted to appellant and petitioners