Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.18 seconds)

Krushnakant B. Parmar vs Union Of India & Anr on 15 February, 2012

8. Per contra, the respondent submits that except for the absence from 11.01.2017 to 15.03.2022 i.e., for a period of more than five years, there has been no blemish in his record. It is submitted that as his absence was for reasons beyond his control. He voluntarily admitted the same without contesting the allegations, in the fond hope of being continued in service, and -6- NC: 2026:KHC-D:2846-DB WP No. 106139 of 2024 HC-KAR that he genuinely intended to serve the police force honestly to the best of his ability. It is submitted that the facts disclose that the unauthorised absence was not willful. It is also submitted that the respondent was not heard before imposing the major penalty of compulsory retirement. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Krushnakant B. Parmar Vs. Union of India & Anr.1, wherein at paragraph Nos.14 to 22 it has been held as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 454 - Full Document
1