Gr.Hydrabad Mun.Corp vs M.Prabhakar Rao on 28 July, 2011
10. Apart from that, this Court also notices that the Ho'ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of Greater Hyderabad
Municipal Corpn. v. M. Prabhakar Rao1 held as follows:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.22 seconds)Union Of India Etc. Etc vs K.V. Jankiraman Etc. Etc on 27 August, 1991
9. The rationale, on which sub-rule (3) of FR 54-B
is based, is that during the period of suspension an
employee does not work and, therefore, he is not entitled
1
(2011) 8 SCC 155
10
to any pay unless after the termination of the disciplinary
proceedings or the criminal proceedings the competent
authority is of the opinion that the suspension of the
employee was wholly unjustified. This rationale has been
explained in clear and lucid language by a three-Judge
Bench of this Court in Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman
[(1991) 4 SCC 109 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 387 : (1993) 23 ATC
322] . At SCC p. 121 in para 26 P.B. Sawant, J., writing
the judgment for the Court in the aforesaid case further
observed:
Smt. K. Ponnamma vs The State Of Kerala & Ors on 17 March, 1997
11. To a similar effect is the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court reported in K. Ponnamma v. State of
Kerala2.
Ashok Paper Kamgar Union And Ors. vs Dharam Godha And Ors. [Alongwith ... on 5 September, 2003
13. Para 17 of the judgment reported in Ashok Paper
Kamgar Union v. Dharam Godha3, defines 'willful
disobedience' as follows:
Ram Kishan vs Tarun Bajaj & Ors on 17 January, 2014
14. To the same effect is the decision in Ram Kishan v.
Tarun Bajaj4. Paras 12 and 15 of this judgment are
reproduced hereunder:
1