Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.30 seconds)S. L. Kapoor vs Jagmohan & Ors on 18 September, 1980
It was held that the case of the
respondent fell within the exceptions stated in S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan
(supra) namely that on admitted or indisputable facts, only one view was
possible and that even no prejudice would be said to have been caused to
him though notice had not been issued. It was held that the University
had not acted unreasonably in informing him advance - while granting
one year extension, in addition to the absence of the two years - that no
further extension will be given. On the said facts it was held that absence
of a notice to show cause did not make any difference for the employee
who had already been told that if his further overstay was for continuing
in the job in Libya it was borne to be refused.
Aligarh Muslim University And Ors vs Mansoor Ali Khan on 28 August, 2000
In Aligarh Muslim University and Others v. Mansoor Ali
Khan, AIR 2000 SC 2783, the respondent was working as a Laboratory
Assistant and he applied for two years extraordinary leave for joining a
Al-Fatah University, Tripoli, Libya. The Vice Chancellor sanctioned
leave for two years. Before expiry of the period, the respondent applied
for extension of leave by three years. The University granted him
extension of leave for one year only and a date was fixed by which the
respondent was required to resume his duties; besides, it was provided
that no further extension in the period of leave would be possible. The
CWP No.10144 of 2013 -8-
respondent without waiting for the receipt of the order entered into a fresh
contract in Libya, which was to be for a minimum period of two years.
He then wrote a letter to the University seeking extension of leave by one
more year and stated that he would definitely join duty on its expiry. The
University sent a telegram informing him that his request for further
extension had been refused and he should resume his duties by the fixed
date failing which he would be deemed to have vacated the post and
ceased to be in the University service. On the expiry of the date, a cable
was sent extending the joining time and date on which the respondent was
required to join. Thereafter, still another telegram was issued. The
respondent failed to join his duty and the University deemed that he had
vacated the office. The respondent filed a writ petition seeking quashing
of the two telegrams and the order by which he was deemed to have
vacated his post. His writ petition before the High Court was dismissed
by the Single Bench holding that he had not expressed any intention to
join till his assignment in Libya was over. Besides, without waiting for
extension he entered into a fresh contract in Libya. He also did not avail
the joining time as also the extended period. Therefore, his conduct did
not justify any relief. In appeal, a Division Bench allowed the appeal and
the Vice Chancellor of the University was decided to consider the matter
afresh in view of the Service Rules applicable. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court observed that admittedly no notice under the relevant Rules had
been given and therefore, there was violation of principles of natural
justice.
M.C. Mehta vs Union Of India And Ors on 27 July, 1999
Reliance was placed on an earlier judgment in M.C. Mehta v.
Union of India, (1999) 6 SCC 237 wherein it was held that there can be
certain situations in which an order passed in violation of natural justice
CWP No.10144 of 2013 -9-
need not be set aside under Article 226 of the Constitution, for example,
where no prejudice is caused to the person concerned, interference in
under Article 226 was not necessary.
Union Of India & Ors vs Bishamber Das Dogra on 26 May, 2009
In Union of India and Others v. Bishamber Das Dogra,
(2009) 13 SCC 102, the respondent was a Security Guard in CISF and had
remained absent from duty without justification or leave for more than
five times in less than six years of his service. He was inflicted with
punishment of removal from service. It was held that the order was
required to be examined on the touchstone of doctrine of prejudice. The
delinquent employee has to establish real prejudice caused by non-
furnishing of enquiry report. It was held that the principles of natural
justice cannot be put into a straitjacket formula and its observance would
depend upon the fact situation of each case. Therefore, the application of
the principles of natural justice has to be understood with reference to the
relevant facts and circumstances of a particular case.
District Collector And Chairman ... vs M. Tripura Sundari Devi on 20 April, 1990
In the District Collector and
Chairman, Vizianagaram v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi, JT 1990 (2) SC
169, the respondent therein was unqualified for the post and her selection
was made by mistake. At the time of joining of duties, the respondent
was found to be not having the requisite qualifications and was not
permitted to join. It was held by the Supreme Court that an appointment
made in disregard of the qualifications mentioned in the advertisement it
was a matter not only between the appointing authority and the appointee
but all those who had similar or better qualifications and had not applied
as they did not possess the qualifications mentioned in the advertisement.
CWP No.10144 of 2013 -11-
Appointing persons with inferior qualifications is a fraud on public and no
Court should be party to the same.
Section 12 in The Punjab Municipal Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Section 238 in The Punjab Municipal Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Section 44 in The Army Act, 1950 [Entire Act]
State Bank Of Patiala & Ors vs S.K.Sharma on 27 March, 1996
In State Bank of Paitala v. S.K. Sharma, (1996) 3 SCC
364, the respondent was working as a Branch Manager in State Bank of
Patiala and was subjected to a departmental enquiry. In the enquiry that
was conducted, the copies of statements of two witnesses were not
furnished to him although he was permitted to peruse them and take notes
therefrom for more than three days prior to their examination as
witnesses. Out of the two witnesses, one was examined. The respondent
did not object during the enquiry that he was not furnished copies of the
statements which disabled him from effective cross-examining the
witnesses or to defend himself. It was observed that no prejudice had
resulted to the respondent on account of not furnishing him the copies of
CWP No.10144 of 2013 -7-
the statements of witnesses and in the circumstances, there had been a
substantial compliance with the Regulations that were applicable. It was
held that the several procedural provisions governing disciplinary
enquiries are nothing but an elaboration of the principles of natural justice
and their several facets. It is a case of codification of the several facets of
the rule of audi alteram partem or the rule against bias. The sub-clause
that had been infringed it was observed incorporated the principles of
natural justice and was designed to provide an adequate opportunity to the
delinquent officer to cross-examine the witnesses effectively and thereby
defend himself properly. It was a procedural provision. Merely because
the word 'shall' was used in the said provision, it could not be held to be
mandatory. Moreover, even a mandatory requirement can be waived by
the person concerned if such mandatory provision is conceived is interest
and not in public interest. From the conduct, the delinquent officer it was
held must be deemed to have waived it. This is an aspect which is to be
borne in mind while examining a complaint of non-observance of
procedural rules governing such enquiries.
1