Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“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.”
“The punishment of dismissal in the present case shocks the conscience of this court because the punishment is shockingly disproportionate.”
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.
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.
The High Court opined that pension being a very valuable right, the legislature in its wisdom, had incorporated Rule 22 of the 1969 Rules, so that a pensioner survives till the allegations attain finality.
The Court was of the view that a 63-year-old employee, who is to face a departmental enquiry along with the criminal trial becomes “tongue tied” and therefore he would require the assistance of a Legal Practitioner.
Justice C.T. Ravikumar is known among the legal circle for having a firm grasp of precedents and statutory provisions.. We have curated some of his important High Court and Supreme Court decisions.
Manipur High Court: In a writ petition filed to quash the dismissal order dated 18.1.2005 on the ground that it
Jharkhand High Court: Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J., while dismissing the writ petition dealing with a service matter preferred by the
“What is non-existent in the eye of the law cannot be revived retrospectively.”
Jharkhand High Court: Shree Chandrashekhar, J. held that a charged employee has no unfettered right to ask for any document on which
Supreme Court: The 3-Judge Bench of N.V. Ramana, CJ., Surya Kant* and Hima Kohli, JJ., held that the Bank is not the
Patna High Court: Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J., set aside the order of dismissal of a constable who was removed from service in
“Judicial discretion, it is trite, cannot be exercised either whimsically or capriciously. It may scrutinize or analyse the evidence but what is important is how it does so.”
Supreme Court: The Division Bench of L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai, JJ., held that strict Rules Of Evidence do not apply
Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of R.D. Dhanuka and R.I. Chagla, JJ., refused to quash departmental enquiry against the petitioner even
“Anyone can make mistakes. The consequences of mistakes should not be unduly harsh”
Tripura High Court: Akil Kureshi, CJ., disposed of a writ petition which was filed challenging a departmental inquiry and suspension pending such
Tripura High Court: Akil Kureshi CJ., while directing respondents to release the due payments, observed that departmental proceedings cannot be kept pending
Involvement of a member of the police service in a heinous crime, if established, has a direct bearing on the confidence of society in the police.