Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
In the present case, a Deputy SP, CBI, was accused of demanding illegal gratification. He was placed under suspension, and disciplinary proceedings were initiated under Article 311(2)(b) of Constitution without a regular inquiry. Consequently, the Disciplinary Authority dismissed him from service.
“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.”
The petitioner, Zilla Parishad stated that the respondent’s case, who is the employee of the Zilla Parishad, shall be governed under the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982.
Explore the latest Cases reported in SCC’s High Court Cases (HCC)Volume on Industrial Dispute, Transfer of Employees, Departmental Enquiry, Compulsory Retirement and much more.
“A judicial officer cannot pronounce the concluding portion of his judgment in open court without the entire text of the judgment being prepared/dictated.”
“It is only in rare and exceptional cases that the Court may substitute its own view as to the quantum of punishment.”
“Perusal of the impugned orders indicates that it is apparently a non-speaking and unreasoned order and it nowhere mentions as to how the petitioner was responsible for the result being lower than the standard norms fixed by the respondents.”
“This Court is required to draw a balance between the right of the petitioner to travel abroad and also the right of the department to duly proceed with the enquiry against the petitioner.”
The Court directed that the SSP should be free either to conduct departmental inquiry after following due procedure prescribed by Punjab Police Rules, 1934 or take appropriate decision after conclusion of criminal proceedings.
“Sexual harassment in any form at the workplace must be viewed seriously and the harasser should not be allowed to escape from the clutches of law.”
The confessional statement was signed beyond the official hours in the office premises in the presence of only male witnesses.
In a case where a physics teacher was accused of sexual harassment and molestation of a minor girl, the Delhi High Court held that in dealing with such matters, paramount consideration must be given to the well-being of the child whose mental psyche was vulnerable, impressionable and in a developing stage.
Supreme Court: In an interesting case where the Division Bench of Sanjay Kishan Kaul* and M.M. Sundresh, JJ., was to answer whether
“If a preliminary inquiry could be conducted, there may not be any reason as to why formal departmental inquiry could not have been initiated against the delinquent.”
Punjab and Haryana High Court: Arvind Singh Sagwan J. allowed the present application and ordered a departmental inquiry against the officers on