Judgments - Departmental Enquiry
Suraj Pal Singh Rathor vs. M.P. High Court and another
Law laid down - The scope of interference in a writ petition against the order of punishment passed in the departmental inquiry is limited. The Court does not sit in appeal against the order passed in the departmental inquiry. Unless it is shown by the petitioner that the inquiry was not conducted in accordance with the prescribed procedure or there was any violation of the principles of natural justice, no interference in the inquiry proceeding is required. Interference in the departmental Full Judgment
Amit Chaurasia Vs. The State of M.P. & another
Law laid down - Applying an exception for not conducting a regular departmental enquiry to dismiss or remove a person or to reduce him in rank. For major penalties there must be some strong and cogent reason with the Authority competent to impose such punishment and should be assigned in writing as to why enquiry is not reasonable and practicable to be held. Imposing major penalties applying the exception of Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India is always a ground of Full Judgment
Anand Kumar Singh Vs. The State Of Bihar and Ors
Narad Tamrakar Versus State of Chhattisgarh
SUNIL KUMAR NAGPAL VERSUS CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA & ORS
Khirod Soni Versus State of Chhattisgarh
ANIL KUMAR SINGH VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd & another Vs. Kailash Chandra
Law laid down - Alternative Remedy-Article 226 of the Constitution and Industrial Disputes Act 1947 - The respondent employees were “workmen” and appellant Corporation is an 'industry' within the meaning of ID Act, 1947. The employer contended that writ petition could not have been entertained and respondents should have been relegated to avail the remedy under the ID Act. The contention is not accepted because (i) the punishment orders under question before the learned Single Judge were based on admitted documents of Full Judgment