Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (2.93 seconds)Mohan Lal Shamlal Soni vs Union Of India And Another on 22 February, 1991
13. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Tribunal in case of
Sohan Lal vs. UOI & Ors. in OA No.2388/2003 decided on
18.01.2006 wherein it was held that once a government servant
tenders medical certificate issued by an authorized medical authority,
the quasi judicial authority on administrative side is not an expert
body either to comment about reliability or genuineness of the
certificate. In cases of doubt, the competent authority can verify the
genuineness of the medical certificate by sending the concerned
person for medical examination before a medical authority for second
opinion.
State Of Punjab vs Mohinder Singh & Ors on 28 September, 2007
14. The applicant has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab vs. Mohinder Singh
2005 Vol.12 SCC 182 wherein the Apex Court interfered on the point
of proportionality of punishment and the delinquent official being
absent from duty for a period of 5½ months and being inflicted with
the extreme punishment of dismissal which was converted to
compulsory retirement on account of 23 years of service was released
by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
Union Of India & Ors vs G.R.Rama Krishna & Anr on 23 August, 2013
In the
case of Union of India vs. G.Krishna, the Hon'ble High has held as
follows:
Krushnakant B. Parmar vs Union Of India & Anr on 15 February, 2012
In Krushnakant B. Parmar vs. Union of India & Anr.: 2012 (2)
SLJ 19 (SC) the Supreme Court whilst deciding an appeal on
unauthorized absence and misconduct observed as under:-
Govt. Of N.C.T.D., New Delhi Through ... vs Sunil Tanwar on 23 July, 2012
In support of the aforesaid contentions, learned counsel for the
applicant places reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court
in WPC No.6831-2011 titled GNCTD vs. Sunil Tanwar decided on
23.07.2012 whereby it was clearly held that the absence of the
respondent was not willful but there were compelling circumstances
beyond the control of the respondent. In this case, the Hon'ble High
Court concluded that the absence of the respondent was not willful and
it cannot construe any misconduct. Resultantly, the respondent was
reinstated setting aside his order of removal.
1