Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“Judged by moral standards of the CWC members, the petitioner may not be a good person, but that does not make her a bad mother.”
The Court further explained that Registration of a cognizable offence against the convict, per se, is not a ground to cancel the remission order. Every case of breach cannot invite cancellation of the remission order.
While the impugned orders are elaborate and explicitly cite specific provisions and clauses of the Haj Policy, 2023, which the petitioners were found to be violating, the show cause notices do not refer to any violations of the Haj Policy, 2023, attributable to the petitioners.
“Even while passing administrative order having civil consequences, the reasons are not only to be recorded but are to be supplied to the affected parties.”
by Vasanth Rajasekaran* and Harshvardhan Korada**
The Court held that the petitioner’s termination was based on a misapplication of the policy, as no qualified ST candidate was available, and therefore, no preference could have been applied.
The Court held that the de-empanelment order was issued in contravention of natural justice principles due to the lack of proper notice and opportunity for the petitioner to respond.
In the administrative action where the decision of authority may result in civil consequences, a hearing before taking a decision is necessary.
Respondents submitted that no opportunity of personal hearing was required to be assigned to the aggrieved, before the FIR was filed and registered.
It is wholly insufficient to proceed to make an addition on the basis that CBIC is an apex body and information provided by it cannot be doubted, without even analyzing such information.
“An advocate has to fearlessly uphold the interest of his client by all fair and honourable means without regard to any unpleasant consequences to himself or any other, but he must exercise restraint in using intemperate language during arguments in the Court.”
“When no opportunity is given to deal with an argument which goes to the root of the case based on evidence which go behind the back of the party and results in a denial of justice to the prejudice of the party, the same would amount to violation of principle of natural justice.”
The Court noted that, “To attract curial intervention, it must be established that the breach of the rules of natural justice must, at the very least, have actually altered the final outcome of the arbitral proceedings in some meaningful way”.
Calcutta High Court opined that an appeal is no substitute for revisiting of an ex parte order, especially when the defense of the petitioner is not on record.
by Siddharth R. Gupta* and Prakruthi N.**
Cite as: 2024 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 20
“Rendering the representations preferred by the aggrieved employees mute, by way of non-consideration by the State, is reflective of conduct unbecoming of government servants who are tasked with the noble responsibility to serve the citizens.”
Calcutta High Court stated that show-cause notices are analogous to a First Information Report (FIR) and are not required to detail the probative value of the Forensic Audit Report at this stage.
“In a society like ours, job more often than not, happens to be predominant source of livelihood and therefore snatching away a job, virtually amounts to taking away the means of livelihood of the employee.”
Madras High Court said that natural justice clearly requires that the additional evidence placed on record by both parties should be considered by the Opposition Board.
Calcutta High Court noted that discrepancies in service date and providing inadequate time for response to show-cause notice, indicates a breach of natural justice.