The case involved an employee charge-sheeted in September 2014, just months before retirement. The inquiry officer cleared him, yet the punishing authority cut his pension by 5% for a year in October 2018 without explaining the disagreement. The appeal was dismissed without reviewing the inquiry report.

The court stressed that if the disciplinary authority disagrees with the inquiry officer, it must explain its reasons. Justice Brar noted that natural justice requires giving the officer a hearing before imposing punishment. Failing this, along with issuing the charge-sheet late, made the process arbitrary and abusive.

The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the punishment order. It directed the corporation to release all benefits due to the employee, with 6% annual interest from the date of filing until full payment.

The post High Court Quashes Delayed Disciplinary Action appeared first on India Podcast.

Justice Sanjeev Kumar delivered the ruling after hearing a petition by Tarkeshwar Pandey. The candidate said the Bihar Public Service Commission banned him unfairly. He explained that the preliminary exam paper was delayed by thirty minutes. Later, his brief media statement was circulated in a misleading way. Based on this, BPSC imposed a three-year ban.

BPSC had barred him from appearing in exams from February 19, 2024, to December 12, 2027. He argued that his detailed explanation was ignored. The court agreed and noted that fairness demands clear reasoning before punishing candidates.

The High Court also cited Supreme Court rulings that reasons are essential in disciplinary action. The judge declared that the BPSC order lacked justification. The decision restored the petitioner’s right to sit in future exams.

This ruling sets a strong precedent. It shows that exam bodies must act with transparency and fairness. The Patna High Court quashes BPSC ban to protect candidates’ rights and uphold natural justice.

The post Patna High Court Quashes BPSC Ban appeared first on India Podcast.