Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.35 seconds)
State Of Gujarat vs Ravjibhai Chhaganbhai Sidhpara on 13 July, 2022 cites

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

12.Mr.Karathiya learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the respondent is willing to accept his penalty enhanced and to stoppage of six increments with future effect and also to have his superannuation be treated from the date of penalty of compulsory retirement i.e. 01.06.2015. Page 20 of 22 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 15 21:22:13 IST 2022 C/SCA/1542/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/07/2022 In light of the decisions of the Supreme Court, especially in the case of Krushnakant B. Parmar (supra), misconduct yes it was on the part of the respondent on having remained absent, but in absence of any record to show except one omission of such similar nature, the Tribunal, in the perception of this Court rightly interfered with the quantum of punishment. The order of the Tribunal is modified and the penalty of stoppage of three increments is enhanced to six increments with future effect.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 454 - Full Document

Harilal Hirjibhai Vaselia vs State Of Gujarat & 2 on 3 August, 2016

9. The Supreme Court has found that the absence is Page 13 of 22 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 15 21:22:13 IST 2022 C/SCA/1542/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/07/2022 a result of compelling circumstances, it cannot be said to be willful. Absence from duty without any application or prior permission may amount to unauthorized absence, but it does not always be willful. A Coordinate bench of this Court in case of Harilal Hirjibhai Vaselia (supra) after viewing the case law on the question of absence and the judgments on the question of proportionality of penalty in such cases in paragraphs nos.21 to 24 observed as under:
Gujarat High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 1 - J B Pardiwala - Full Document
1