Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.27 seconds)
Smt C Moitra vs Union Of India on 19 June, 2018 cites

Govt. Of A.P. And Ors vs P.Chandra Mouli & Anr on 16 April, 2009

In the case of Govt. of A.P. Vs. P. Chandra Mouli - 2009 (13) SCC 272, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the power of punishment to an employee is within the discretion of the employer and ordinarily the courts do not interfere unless it is found that either inquiry proceedings or punishment is vitiated because of non-observance of the relevant rules and regulations or principles of natural justice or denial of reasonable opportunity to defend, etc. or that the punishment is totally disproportionate to the proved misconduct of an employee.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 49 - A Pasayat - Full Document

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

In the case of Krushnakant B Parmar Vs Union of India and another reported in (2012) 1 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 609, the employee was principally charged for unauthorised absence from duty during three consecutive periods: (i) 3-10-1995 to 7-11- 1995 (36 days); (ii) 9-11-1995 to 10-12-1995 (32 days); and (iii) 10- 12-1995 to 2-8-1995 (234) days, in violation of Rules 3 (1) (ii) and 3 (1) (iii) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that if absence is due to compelling circumstances under which it was not possible to report for or perform duty, such absence cannot be held to be 17 wilful and employee guilty of misconduct. In the said case, neither inquiry officer nor appellate authority had found the absence of government servant wilful despite his specific defence that he was prevented from attending duty and was not allowed to sign attendance register. Evidence produced by the Government employee to substantiate his claim was ignored by the authorites concerned and on the basis of irrelevant facts and surmises he was held guilty. Hon'ble Supreme Court affirmed the order of Tribunal and quashed the dismissal order. Considering that the appellant had suffered a lot since 1996, when proceedings were initiated against him, the matter was not remitted to disciplinary authority and it was directed to reinstate the Government employee and pay him 50% back wages.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 454 - Full Document

Fakirbhai Fulabhai Solanki vs Presiding Officer And Anr. on 8 May, 1986

This decision was followed in Fakirbhai Fulabhai Solanki v Presiding Officer,6 and it was held in that case that if an employee could not attend the departmental proceedings on account of financial stringencies caused by non-payment of subsistence allowance, and thereby could not undertake journey away from his home to attend the departmental proceedings, the order of punishment, including the whole proceedings would stand vitiated."
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 90 - E S Venkataramiah - Full Document
1   2 Next