Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.27 seconds)The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Hc Rohtash Singh vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi Through ... on 24 April, 2008
19. Sequelly, in HC Bishamber Singh's case (supra), the
applicant had duly informed to his higher officer on telephone at
11.20 AM that he would be on leave because he is not feeling
well. Information was duly recorded vide DD entry No.15 of
18.07.2002. On the same day, vide DD entry No.20 at 01.45
PM, it had been reported that the applicant had not turned up
for duty. Subsequently, the applicant had submitted medical
certificate.
Ramesh Kumar vs Commissioner Of Police & Ors. on 29 April, 2013
33. Above all, assuming for the sake of argument (though not
admitted), if applicant was seriously sick, even then he has to
inform the department and ought to have got his leave
sanctioned from the competent authority as per relevant rules,
in view of the ratio of judgment of this Tribunal in OA
No.1320/2013 decided on 28.02.2014 titled as Ramesh
Kumar Vs. The Commissioner of Police and Others, which is
totally lacking in the present case.
State Of U.P. & Others vs Ashok Kumar Singh & Anr on 10 November, 1995
Similarly, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. and Others Vs.
Ashok Kumar Singh (1996) 1 SCC 302, held that absence of
the respondent from duty would amount to grave misconduct
16 OA No.1402/2013
and there was no justification for the High Court to interfere
with the punishment holding that the punishment was not
commensurate with the gravity of the charge.
North Eastern Karnataka R.T. Corpn vs Ashappa on 12 May, 2006
35. The reliance in this regard can also be placed on the
judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of North
Eastern Karnataka Road Transport Corporation vs.
Ashappa, (2006) 5 SCC 137 and State of Rajasthan vs.
Mohd. Ayub Naz: 2006 SCC (L&S) 175, wherein, it was held
that habitual absenteeism can be a valid ground for dismissal of
an employee from service. Absenteeism from office for a
prolonged period of time without prior permission by
government servants has become a principal cause of
indiscipline which has greatly affected various government
services. In order to mitigate the rampant absenteeism and
wilful absence from service without intimation to the
Government, he may be removed from service.
State Of Rajasthan And Anr vs Mohammed Ayub Naz on 3 January, 2006
35. The reliance in this regard can also be placed on the
judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of North
Eastern Karnataka Road Transport Corporation vs.
Ashappa, (2006) 5 SCC 137 and State of Rajasthan vs.
Mohd. Ayub Naz: 2006 SCC (L&S) 175, wherein, it was held
that habitual absenteeism can be a valid ground for dismissal of
an employee from service. Absenteeism from office for a
prolonged period of time without prior permission by
government servants has become a principal cause of
indiscipline which has greatly affected various government
services. In order to mitigate the rampant absenteeism and
wilful absence from service without intimation to the
Government, he may be removed from service.
B.C. Chaturvedi vs Union Of India And Ors on 1 November, 1995
37. Furthermore, the jurisdiction of judicial review of this
Tribunal in such disciplinary matters is very limited. The
Hon'ble Apex Court while considering the jurisdiction of judicial
17 OA No.1402/2013
review and rule of evidence in the case of B.C. Chaturvedi Vs.
U.O.I. & Others AIR 1996 SC 484 has ruled as under:-
Union Of India vs H. C. Goel on 30 August, 1963
In Union
of India v. H. C. Goel (1964) 4 SCR 718 : (AIR 1964 SC 364),
this Court held at page 728 (of SCR): (at p 369 of AIR), that if
the conclusion, upon consideration of the evidence, reached by
the disciplinary authority, is perverse or suffers from patent
error on the face of the record or based on no evidence at all, a
writ of certiorari could be issued".