Judgments - Removal from Service
Chandresh Shukla Vs. The Registrar, People’s University
Law laid down - The order should clearly reflect the reasons thereof, subsequent explanation or reasons justifying the impugned order not permissible. (See para-10) Recording of reasons for terminating the services in the impugned order is necessary, as the reasons are the heartbeat of any order. Non-speaking orders do not stand judicial scrutiny. (See para-9) Full Judgment
Rajesh Kumar Rathore vs. High Court of M.P. and another
Law laid down - Held:- when the services of a temporary employee or a probationer or contingency paid employee is brought to an end by passing innocuous order due to unsatisfactory nature of service or on account of an act for which some action is taken, but the termination is made in a simplicitor manner without conducting of inquiry or without casting any stigma on the employee, the provisions of Rule 9 of the Rules 1980 can be taken aid of. However, Full Judgment
Chief General Manager, S.E.C.L vs. Chandramani Tiwari
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. VERSUS EX. CONSTABLE RAM KARAN
Mithilesh Kumar, Vs. The State of Bihar
Birendra Kumar Vs. The State Of Bihar and Ors.
Dhirendra Kumar Dubey Vs. The State of M.P. & Others
Rajive Nandan Mourya, Vs. The State Of Bihar
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. VERSUS SURJI DEVI
STATE OF U.P. & ANR. VERSUS SHYAM LAL JAISWAL
STANDARD CHARTERED BANK VERSUS R.C. SRIVASTAVA
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. VERSUS SOMDUTT SHARMA
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. VERSUS DALBIR SINGH
Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and another Versus Anil Kanwariya
MOHD SHAMIM & ORS VERSUS DELHI WAQF BOARD & ANR
UTTAR PRADESH JAL VIDYUT (S)NIGAM LIMITED & ORS. VERSUS BALBIR SINGH
RANBIR SINGH VERSUS EXECUTIVE ENG.P.W.D.
The State of M.P. & Ors. Versus Yogesh Pathak
Law laid down:- (i) If the purpose of the enquiry is not to find out the truth of the allegations of misconduct but to decide whether to retain the employee against whom a cloud is raised on his conduct such enquiry only serves as a motive for the termination. But where the enquiry is held wherein on the basis of the evidence a definite finding is reached at the back of the employee about his misconduct and such finding forms the Full Judgment
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