Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“In the absence of any clinching material showing the Workman’s involvement in the withdrawal of cash, he was inflicted with the punishment of dismissal from service, thus, raising doubts about the fairness of the enquiry conducted against him.”
by Ramkishore Karanam* and Preethi Sivaraman**
“The High Court can interfere with the order of punishment only in case of violation of the provisions of rules or principles of natural justice are proved.”
Petitioner has taken a specific defence that his wife was seriously ill and was under medical treatment for a long time and ultimately, she passed away. The records of the departmental enquiry also suggested that the medical papers of the wife of the petitioner were duly placed on record. The enquiry officer failed to take this account to its proper perspective.
Regarding the reinstatement of other two judicial officers, the Court will hear the matter on 24-09-2024, as the Full Court decided to not revoke their earlier resolutions and would place the adverse remarks and other materials against them before the Supreme Court in a sealed cover.
If the Government servant has been terminated without adhering to Article 311 of the Constitution, then in such a case the provisions cannot be interpreted in favour of the State to deprive the employee of his legitimate claim.
By virtue of Rules 54(2) and 54(3), the petitioner is entitled to full pay and allowances for the period between 9-1-2020 to 29-9-2020 and his absence from service during the said period has to be treated as a period spent on duty for all purposes.
The Court observed that this was not the isolated case where the jurisdictional SSP of State had dispensed with inquiry. As soon as an FIR was registered against the police official, the jurisdictional SSPs opted to dispense with inquiry.
The Court referred to MAT’s finding that the petitioners were empowered to terminate the services of a probationer in case of misconduct, provided that such misconduct is proved after an opportunity of being heard is availed to the respondent. However, the same was not followed by the petitioners.
“Where the job continues without even any performance appraisal or periodical renewal, and the person engaged in the same would be termed as a “trainee”, as it is in the present case, the same would be considered as unfair labour practice.”
“The term ‘serious crime’ connotes a crime beyond the ordinary, inviting a more serious major punishment than what may be given in the case of a minor omission.”
Madhya Pradesh High Court noted that the petitioner had been absent for an extended period, both before and after the court’s interim orders.
Punjab & Haryana High Court: While allowing the instant petition filed against the order, whereby the services of the petitioners were terminated
Supreme Court: The Division Bench comprising M.R. Shah and Aniruddha Bose, JJ., reinstated All India Chess Federation (AICF) secretary Bharat Singh Chauhan
Supreme court: In a long ongoing battle between Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) and its temporary/badli/part-time employees over claim for absorption,
Gujarat High Court: Biren Vaishnav, J. allowed a petition which was filed challenging the order of termination passed by the respondent –
Supreme Court: In a case where a bank employee was dismissed from services despite lack of evidence, the bench of KM Joseph
Jharkhand High Court: Deepak Roshan, J., partly allowed the challenge against the order of the Disciplinary Authority whereby the petitioner had been
Supreme Court: While hearing the appeal filed by Maharashtra SRTC, the Division Bench comprising of M. R. Shah* and B. V. Nagarathna,
Jharkhand High Court: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J. while holding the reason assigned by the Director-General of Police (DGP) while rejecting the claim