Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.52 seconds)
Ranglal Prasad vs Eastern Railway on 6 April, 2021 cites

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

8. We are, however, fortified in our views that the absence has to be wilful, in view of the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Krushnakant B. Parmar Vs Union of India & Anr., {2012) 3 SCC 178, in which it has been held that "if the absence is the result of compelling circumstances under which it was not possible to report or perform duty, such absence can not be held to be wilful".
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 454 - Full Document

Union Of India And Ors vs Shri B. Dev on 14 August, 1998

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. B.Dev, 1999 SCC (L&S) 57, has observed that unauthorized absence for unforeseen reasons, if satisfactorily explained, may be lightly viewed as fit for minor penalty. However, where facts and circumstances indicate deliberate preparation for unauthorized absence by an employee, which was materialized with conscious and deliberate action to disobey orders for resumption of duty, extreme punishment of withholding full pension, even after retirement, was held to have been justly awarded.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 46 - S V Manohar - Full Document
1