Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.16 seconds)
Munnakkalal vs Union Of India on 7 August, 2013 cites

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

14. In the instant case also, the disciplinary authority has failed to prove that the absence from duty was willful. The enquiry officer has specifically found that the applicant did not remain absent without intimation and he informed regarding his absence from time to time while undergoing treatment in the private hospital, and the adverse circumstances in which he remained absent, and tendered apology for his conduct and his case needs sympathetic consideration. However, the disciplinary authority has found him guilty of the misconduct ignoring the defence of the applicant and the finding recorded by the enquiry officer. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that the present case is fully covered by the ratio laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in the matters of Krushnakant B. Parmar (supra).
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 454 - Full Document
1