Supreme Court said that the officers of the Haryana Civil Service must be free from both ongoing and contemplated disciplinary proceedings to be eligible under Rule 9(1)(a)(iii).
Supreme Court said that allowing the orders of disciplinary authority and the appellate authority to stand, will be unjust, unfair and oppressive, as the charges were not just similar, but identical and the evidence, witnesses and circumstances were all the same.
“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.”
“Departmental proceedings pending criminal trial would not warrant an automatic stay unless, a complicated question of law is involved. Also, acquittal in a criminal case ipso facto would not be tantamount to closure or culmination of proceedings in favour of a delinquent employee”
“If the records of the enquiry officer reveal that the findings are based on some evidence, it is not the function of the Court in a judicial review to re-appreciate the same and arrive at an independent finding on the evidence”.
“When even prisoners have fundamental rights and it has been declared by the Supreme Court that Part III of the Constitution does not stop at the prison gates, it would be ridiculous to suggest that the moment a person becomes a bank employee, he has to bid good-bye to Article 19(1)(a).”
Bombay High Court found the Labour Court and Industrial Court justified in refusing to exercise jurisdiction in the petitioner’s favour.
Madras HC dismissed a plea filed by IRS Officer who supported Sri Lankan Tamils through a hunger strike and criticised the Indian government’s policies on the Indo-Sri Lanka Peace Accord
Whether or not an employee should be permitted to retire in accordance with the Scheme in the event that the Scheme itself provides for retirement to become effective upon completion of the notice period. The VRS that was implemented by the Department is, in essence, an expression of the Department’s aim to prune the overstaffed positions.
“Section 21 does empower the Institute to proceed suo motu and unhindered by the absence of a written complaint or allegation that may be submitted. A written complaint or allegation in writing cannot, in any manner, be understood to be a pre-requisite or a sine qua non for the initiation of action under Section 21.”
Manipur High Court: In a writ petition filed to quash the dismissal order dated 18.1.2005 on the ground that it
“Individual wrongs or breach of mutual contracts without having any public element as its integral part cannot be rectified through a writ petition under Article 226.”
Jharkhand High Court: Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J., while dismissing the writ petition dealing with a service matter preferred by the
Supreme Court: In a case where an employee had produced a fake certificate for seeking employment, the bench of MR Shah* and
“The purpose of a disciplinary proceeding by an employer is to enquire into an allegation of misconduct by an employee which results in a violation of the service rules governing the relationship of employment.”
“A legislative intent cannot be to leave an employee scot-free though he has indulged into serious misconduct.”
Supreme Court: In a disciplinary proceeding where it was established that there was a breach of principles of natural justice as the
Supreme Court: In a case where a former employee of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation sought benefit of Selection Grade, 7 years
Supreme Court: The 2-judge bench of AM Khanwilkar and CT Ravikumar, JJ has reiterated the position laid down by the Constitution Bench
Supreme Court: In a case where the Rajasthan High Court had permitted the respondent employee who is facing disciplinary proceedings to represent