Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.18 seconds)Sub-Divisional Inspector Of ... vs Theyyam Joseph Etc on 2 February, 1996
2. The facts of the case in brief are that, the
respondent who engaged as GDSPM was involved in certain
misconduct. After inquiry, the Inquiry Officer submitted a
report stating that, the charges were not proved. The
Disciplinary Authority on examining the entire case,
disagreeing with the Inquiry Officer's report, called upon
the respondent to file objections. Thereafter, the
respondent was removed from service. Later, removal was
confirmed by the Appellate and Revisional Court. Initially
the respondent approached the CAT, later withdrew the
Original Application and thereafter approached the CGIT.
The CGIT relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex
3
Court reported AIR 1996 SC 1271 [Sub-divisional
Inspector of Post, Vaikam Vs. Theyyam Joseph has
observed that, the Postal and Telecommunication
Department is not an Industry and Extra-Departmental
Employees in Postal Department are civil servants and not
workmen under the industrial Disputes Act.
Gopal, Krishnaji Ketkar vs Mahomed Haji Latif & Ors on 19 April, 1968
Further, CGIT
also relying on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court
reported in AIR 1968 SC 1413, [Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar
Vs. Mohamed Haji Latif & Others] has allowed the
respondent's case vide order dated 08.11.2016 holding
that, the II Party/Management is not justified in imposing
punishment of removal of I party/ H.B. Shivanna from
service and also, the I party is entitled for reinstatement,
continuity of service and other consequential benefits that
he would have received in the absence of the impugned
penalty of removal from service.
Diwan Singh Bisht vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India And ... on 16 December, 2004
The Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Diwan Singh Vs. LIC of India and Others
reported in (2015)2 SCC 341, has held that the loss of
confidence is the primary factor to be taken into
consideration and not the amount of money
misappropriated and sympathy or generosity in such cases
is impermissible. Therefore, in the circumstances of the
case, the impugned order is in contravention of the settled
position of law and it suffers from legal and factual
infirmities. Therefore, the CGIT has erred in allowing the
claim of the respondent/employee.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
1