Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.39 seconds)Tushar D. Bhatt vs State Of Gujarat & Ors on 12 February, 2009
In Tushar D. Bhatt v. State of Gujarat [(2009) 11
SCC 678 : (2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 668], the appellant
therein had remained unauthorisedly absent for a period
of six months and further had also written threatening
letters and conducted some other acts of misconduct.
Eventually, the employee was visited with order of
dismissal and the High Court had given the stamp of
approval to the same. Commenting on the conduct of
the appellant the Court stated that he was not justified in
remaining unauthorisedly absent from official duty for
more than six months because in the interest of
discipline of any institution or organisation such an
approach and attitude of the employee cannot be
countenanced."
S.R.Tewari vs Union Of India & Anr on 28 May, 2013
Counsel has also placed
reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of S.R. Tiwari v.
Union of India and another passed in Civil Appeal No.4715-4716/2013 vide
order dated 28.05.2013 pertaining to the submission regarding
disproportionate penalty and also in the case of Krushnakant B. Parmar v.
Union of India and another reported in (2012) 3 SCC 178.
Krushnakant B. Parmar vs Union Of India & Anr on 15 February, 2012
Counsel has also placed
reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of S.R. Tiwari v.
Union of India and another passed in Civil Appeal No.4715-4716/2013 vide
order dated 28.05.2013 pertaining to the submission regarding
disproportionate penalty and also in the case of Krushnakant B. Parmar v.
Union of India and another reported in (2012) 3 SCC 178.
Santosh Kumar Jain vs The State.Union Of India--Intervener on 5 March, 1951
No. 941352587
Santosh Kumar v. Union of India and others) vide order dated 16.03.2018 .
Union Of India And Others vs Ex. Constable Karam Veer Singh on 27 August, 2012
Counsel has also referred to Annexure R/6 which is a
communication given by witness Sheshmal and as per the said witness, it is
evident that the said witness was deputed to visit District
Hospital Chhindwara to find as to whether the petitioner herein was ever
treated in the same hospital. The witness informed the Authority vide
communication dated 30.07.2003 contained in Annexure R/6 that the
petitioner was not found in the hospital nor any record pertaining to
treatment of the petitioner was found. It is also contended by the counsel that
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA
CHOURASIYA
Signing time: 24-09-2025
12:12:18
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:46816
6 WP-6720-2007
departmental inquiry record is available, and as per the record pertaining to
departmental inquiry including the statement of Sheshmal, it was a case
where the absence of the petitioner was willful and accordingly, the
respondent rightly passed the order of the imposition of penalty. Counsel in
support of his contention has placed reliance upon the decisions of the Apex
Court in the cases of Union of India & others v. Santosh Kumar Tiwari
reported in 2024 INSC 392 and Union of Indian and Others v. Ex. Constable
Ram Karan reported in (2022) 1 SCC 373.
Central Industrial Security Force And ... vs Abrar Ali on 14 December, 2016
14. The Apex Court in the case of Central Industrial Security Force
and others v. Abrar Ali reported in (2017) 4 SCC 507 has held as under:
State Of Punjab vs P.L. Singla on 31 July, 2008
16. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v. P.L. Singla
reported in (2008) 8 SCC 469 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 719 while dealing with
unauthorised absence, has held as under:
Mithilesh Singh vs Union Of India And Ors on 27 February, 2003
In Mithilesh Singh v. Union of India [(2003) 3
SCC 309 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 271 : AIR 2003 SC 1724]
the settled legal position has been reiterated. The Court
held that absence from duty without proper intimation is
indicated to be a grave offence warranting removal
from service."