Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.33 seconds)
P Irisan vs Ut Of Pondicherry on 28 January, 2025 cites

Roop Singh Negi vs Punjab National Bank & Ors on 19 December, 2008

17. The counsel further referred to the order dated 07.03.2016 of the Disciplinary Authority, which stated that the applicant's past record of misconduct played a significant role in the imposition of the penalty. The learned counsel argued that this reliance on past conduct was inappropriate. To support this argument, she cited the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank and Others (2009 (2) SCC 570). However, we do not find merit in this contention, as the applicant had previously been declared a deserter due to habitual absenteeism. Such acts of gross indiscipline cannot be tolerated in a disciplined force.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 1059 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Divl. Forest Officer, Kothagudem & Ors vs Madhusudhan Rao on 8 February, 2008

18. Regarding the applicant's argument that the Appellate Authority, without providing any reasons, merely endorsed the findings of the Disciplinary Authority, the learned counsel referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Divisional Forest Officer, Kothagudem and Others vs. 11 OA No.310/01905 of 2016 Madhusudhan Rao (2008 (3) SCC 469). In its order, the Appellate Authority stated that the applicant, due to his repeated acts of absence, had been declared a "Deserter" on four separate occasions. Despite being given numerous opportunities to improve his behavior, the applicant failed to rectify his conduct. Therefore, the Appellate Authority chose not to interfere with the Disciplinary Authority's decision. In our view, the Appellate Authority exercised independent judgment and upheld the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. Thus, the judgment cited by the learned counsel is not applicable in this case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 214 - A Kabir - Full Document

Nand Kishore Prasad vs State Of Bihar And Ors on 19 April, 1978

In support of this 10 OA No.310/01905 of 2016 view, she referred to the judgments in Nand Kishore Prasad Vs The State of Bihar & Others (AIR 1978 SC 1277) and Yoginath D. Badge Vs State of Maharashtra & Another (1999) 7 SCC 739. However, upon reviewing the case, we find no irregularities in the inquiry process. Therefore, the aforementioned judgments do not provide assistance to the applicant in this matter.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 200 - R S Sarkaria - Full Document

Shri Bhagwan Lal Arya vs Commissioner Of Police Delhi & Ors on 16 March, 2004

However, in the case on hand, the past record of service shows habitual absenteeism. Though the appellate authority has dismissed the appellant from service, later on the same has been modified as compulsory retirement, for the reason stated supra.Sri Bhagawan Lal Arya's case (cited supra) is a solitary incident case and it would not apply to the present case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 176 - A R Lakshmanan - Full Document

Union Of India vs Ex. No.6492086A Sep/Ash Kulbeer Singh on 11 March, 2019

19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in a case similar to the applicant's in the present OA, addressed the issue of unauthorized absence of an Armed Forces personnel in Union of India vs. Kulbeer Singh (2019 (13) SCC 20). In this case, the Court held that a punishment order issued by the concerned authority for unauthorized absence of a uniformed personnel was confirmed. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted as follows:
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 4 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

M/S. Burn & Co. Ltd. & Others vs Their Employees on 30 March, 1960

12. Habitual absenteeism is a gross violation of discipline, as held in Burn & Co. Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Their Employees reported in AIR 1959 SC 529. In the said case, an employee, who absented without leave or permission, following a domestic enquiry was dismissed from service. The Industrial Tribunal directed re-instatement. When the matter was adjudicated before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it was held that absence of a workman without permission and without any leave application for the same, amounts to gross violation of discipline, entailing dismissal from service. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that if such a workman is dismissed by his employer, Industrial Tribunal should not order for reinstatement. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that, "Where a workman is almost in the habit of loitering outside his place of work without the permission of his departmental head and does not desist from doing so even though warned, his services can be dispensed with. In such a case, it cannot be said that the employer was actuated by any improper motive to victimise him for his Union activities."
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 4 - K N Wanchoo - Full Document
1