respondents have not even granted the notional benefits of the said termination period. In other words, the respondents have failed even in granting this limited ... period the applicant was kept out of service due to the wrong termination order and/or
(b) in the event the applicant is not found
appointment under Clause 1.1 which provide for three months notice for termination of the appointment by either side or payment of three months salary ... SAIL issued the impugned termination order of the applicant.
7.7 Learned counsel for the applicant also argued that it is wrong to say that
that the impugned order of termination dated 14.3.2011 of the Applicant by the Respondent-Corporation is absolutely illegal and wrong. Therefore, it is quashed
thereof. It is also not the case of the applicant that the termination order is passed on any alleged misconduct on the part ... service or not makes inquiries for this purpose, it would be wrong to hold that the inquiry which was held, was really intended
remained there for over four years. In those circumstances, the punishment of termination of service that would not debar from future employment was a perfectly ... High Court to interfere with that order. The High Court was equally wrong in setting aside the punishment order passed against the respondent
were not given increments for the intervening period, from the date of termination of their services till the date of restoration of their services/superannuation ... further submitted that the applicants cannot be allowed to plead a continuing wrong as per the law laid down by the Honble Apex Court
PESB held on 26.02.2013 in which recommendation for non-confirmation and termination of the applicant was made to the President. The matter was then referred ... that OA applicant had suppressed the facts and misled the Tribunal by wrongful submissions. According to him, it was well within the knowledge
opportunity of hearing before his service is dispensed with as his termination does not amount to forfeiture of any legal right.
15. We have heard ... pending trial before the court. Offence under Section 341 IPC is wrong restraining any person. Section 323 IPC deals with voluntary causing hurt. Section
without intimation for an indefinite period. Since such was not the case, termination of services under this provision was bad in law.
3. The respondents ... were correct. In further enquiry, it was established that similar mistakes and wrong doings had happened in other cases as well. Consequently, the competent authority
join her duties, or that they had initiated steps for termination of her services, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the version ... unexplained manner from 11.05.1998 to sometime in 2011, which has been claimed wrongly by her to be from 11.09.1998, and has, in a sense, even
