Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“The punishment of dismissal in the present case shocks the conscience of this court because the punishment is shockingly disproportionate.”
“If pension was extended on the basis of length of service, the order of dismissal or removal from service would become meaningless.”
In the present case, respondent conducted proper departmental inquiry and found the petitioner guilty. The petitioner was involved in 52 cases and subjected to different punishments. The petitioner is claiming that dismissal from service is harsh punishment, and it should be substituted with compulsory retirement.
Looking at the punishments awarded to the co-delinquents for same incidents/transactions and acts of connivance and testing the impugned action on the anvil of Article 14 as well as keeping in mind the long and unblemished spell of service of the respondent, save and except, the Single Judge was inclined to convert the punishment from ‘dismissal’ to one of ‘compulsory retirement’.
A person castigating their employer through a constant tirade of false and scandalous allegations does not deserve to continue in the employment of the said employer.
Rule 10(2) of the Assam Rifles Rules, 2010 provides that “any person subject to the Act, who contracts or enters into a second marriage during the lifetime of his first spouse, shall render himself ineligible for retention in service and may be dismissed, removed or retired from service on ground of unsuitability.”
While considering a matter revolving around dismissal of a Banker due to indiscriminate lending of money to fictitious persons, the Court stated, “Funds are parked with the banks by broad segments of the public and this establishes a public trust which compels the banker to act with a greater care than what individuals engaged in commerce ordinarily do.”
The Court observed that the Labour Court’s Award is not happily worded, especially where it holds that in absence of a police complaint, employee’s act of overwriting on gate pass cannot be considered forgery.
The Court held that Lexis Nexis’ decision to deny the applicant the job of Senior Data Discovery and Enrichment Expert I, on the sole basis of his criminal history, constituted unfair discrimination.
Plagiarism by any stretch of imagination will remain plagiarism, irrespective of where the material had been copied from and the quantum of such material copied, will not have any bearing or impact on the alleged misconduct of plagiarism itself.
“Section 115 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 raises a statutory presumption that any person who attempts to commit suicide shall be presumed to have severe stress and shall not be tried and punished under the Penal Code, 1860.”
“Any misconduct on the part of the bank employee/ officer can be meted out with disciplinary action in accordance with the service rules and regulations.”
The Court observed that not the unauthorised absence but the unauthorised association with foreign institution was a matter of concern for the security of the State.
The Court said that no proper show cause notice was served to the petitioner, violating the principle of audi alteram partem, thus, the dismissal from service was not in fair play.
The Court was deciding the case where the ex-employees of Maharashtra State Financial Corporation had challenged decision denying the benefit of revision of pay scales, as recommended by the Fifth Pay Commission, to the employees who had retired or died during the period of 01.01.2006 to 29.03.2010.
Supreme Court: In a case where an employee had produced a fake certificate for seeking employment, the bench of MR Shah* and
Madhya Pradesh High Court: This petition was filed before the Bench of Prakash Shrivastava, J., under Article 226 of the Constitution where
Delhi High Court: A Division Bench comprising of Rekha Palli and Siddhartha Mridul, JJ. dismissed an appeal filed against the order of
Supreme Court: Kurian Joseph, J. delivered the judgment for himself and Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. wherein it was held that forfeiture of
Madhya Pradesh High Court: The Court dismissed the petition seeking to overturn the order ousting the Petitioner’s husband (deceased) on the grounds