Home » Civil Services Rules » CCA/Disc. Rules & Vig. Related Orders » Court Judgements On Service Matters
Court Judgments on Service Matters

Court Judgements On Service Matters

More: High Court Judgements Latest DOPT / CVC / RTI / MOF / CGHS / DPE / RBI  Circulars / Orders * Court Judgments (All) * Vigilance Related GOI/CVC Notifications/Office Orders/Circulars * Right to Information Circulars/Orders/Decisions * CGHS Circulars/Empanelled Hospitals/Package Rates

Unmissable

RECENT JUDGEMENTS

  • Gratuity
    Forfeiture of gratuity under the  Rules read with sub­section (6) of Section 4 of the Act, 1972
    SC: “… in  view of  Rule  34.3  of  the  Rules,  1978,  the employer has a right to withhold gratuity during pendency of the disciplinary proceedings. ….. In my considered view, after conclusion of the disciplinary  inquiry, if held guilty, indeed a penalty can be inflicted upon an employee/delinquent   who  stood  retired  from  service and  what should be the nature of penalty is always depend on the relevant scheme   of   Rules   and  on  the  facts  and  circumstances  of   each case, but either of the substantive penalties specified under Rule 27  of   the  Rules,  1978  including  dismissal   from  service  are  not open to be inflicted on conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings and the punishment of forfeiture of gratuity commensurate with the nature of guilt may be inflicted upon a delinquent employee provided under Rule  34.3 of  Rules,  1978 read with sub­section (6) of Section 4 of the Act, 1972.” –  SC Judgment dated 27.05.2020 – Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Mahanadi Coalfields Limited Vs. Sri Rabindranath Chaubey
  • Compensation of Rs.1,00,000/­ for Improper Handling of Complaint
    Hon’ble SC has, inter alia, held –
    – The   impugned   order   of   compulsory   retirement   passed   under Rule 135 against the appellant/petitioner is valid and legal and the decision of the High Court in this regard stands confirmed subject, however, to modification thereof to the extent indicated in the judgment.
    – The   respondent(s) (Union of India) was directed to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-­ to the appellant/petitioner for violation of her fundamental rights to life and dignity ­ as a result of the improper handling of her complaint of sexual harassment. –  SC Judgment dated 24.04.2020 – Nisha Priya Bhatia Vs. Union of India & Anr.
  • Reservation
    No Reservation in Promotions Without Examining Adequacy of Representation in Promotional Posts: Supreme Court
    SC: “… … The Resolution has  no  legal  basis. … While it is open for the State to confer benefit even through  an  executive  order  by  applying  mandatory  requirements  as contemplated under Article 16(4A) but the Resolution dated 20.03.2002 is  merely  issued by referring to the instructions of  the Union of  India without examining the adequacy of representation in promotional posts, as held by this Court.” –  SC Judgment dated 17.04.2020 – Pravakar Mallick & Anr. Vs. The State of Orissa & Ors.
  • Gratuity
    An employee is an employee, casual, ad-hoc or part time, under the Payment of Gratuity Act: Delhi HC
    Delhi HC: “The definition of employee in the Act, 1972 also does not speak of any specific categories of the employees for its applicability, be it, regular, ad-hoc, part time, casual etc. etc. As for the payment of gratuity under the subject Act, to assess the quantum thereof, it provides for the definition of wages in sub-Section (s) of Section 2. … … :
    The combined reading of sub-Section (e) and sub-Section (s) of Section 2 of the Act, 1972 leaves no doubt that the gratuity is payable to the employees defined under the subject Act and is to be assessed on the basis of the wages / emoluments, within the ceiling limit as provided there-under.” – Delhi High Court Judgement dated 17.11.2019 – National Bal Bhawan Vs. Vandana, Roopa Sharma and Ors.
  • Simultaneous Proceedings
    — SC: “16. …In the present case, following the conviction of the respondent by the Special Judge CBI,  the appellant  was acting within jurisdiction in issuing a notice to show cause under Regulation 39(4) of the 1960 Regulations. The learned single judge was correct in dismissing the special  civil  application filed by the respondent challenging the notice to show cause issued by the appellant. The judgment of the Division Bench restraining  the  appellant  from taking  a  final  decision  on  the  show cause  notice pending the disposal of the criminal appeal has no valid basis in law.” [Simultaneous Proceedings; Conviction; Suspension of Sentence] –  SC Judgment dated 25.02.2020 – Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Mukesh Poonamchand Shah 
    SC: “Para 10 … …. This Court was of the opinion that departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar. However, it is desirable to stay departmental inquiry till conclusion of the criminal case if the departmental proceedings and criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and the charge in the criminal case against the delinquent employee is of a grave nature which involves complicated questions of law and fact.” [Simultaneous Proceedings] – SC Judgment dated 16.09.2019 – Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, Represented by MD (Admin. and HR) V. Sri C. Nagaraju & Anr. 
    SC: “In the peculiar circumstances of the case, specially having regard to the fact that the appellant is undergoing this agony since 1985 despite having been acquitted by the criminal court in 1987, we would not direct any fresh departmental inquiry to be instituted against him on the same set of facts. The appellant shall be reinstated forthwith on the post of Security Officer and shall also be paid entire arrears of salary, together with all allowances from the date of suspension till his reinstatement, within three months. The appellant would also be entitled to his cost which is quantified as Rs.15,000/-.”- SC Judgment dated 30.03.1999 – Capt. M. Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Anr.
  • No Fundamental Right to Reservation
    It has, inter alia, been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukesh Kumar & Anr. V. The State of Uttarakhand & Ors. as under:-
    “16.  …  … In view of the law laid down by this Court, there is no doubt that the State Government is not bound to make reservations. There is no fundamental right which inheres in an individual to claim reservation in promotions. No mandamus can be issued by the Court directing the State Government to provide reservations. It is abundantly clear from the judgments of this Court in Indra Sawhney, Ajit Singh (II), M. Nagaraj and Jarnail Singh (supra) that Article 16 (4) and 16 (4-A) are enabling provisions and the collection of quantifiable data showing inadequacy of representation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in public service is a sine qua non for providing reservations in promotions. The data to be collected by the State Government is only to justify reservation to be made in the matter of appointment or promotion to public posts, according to Article 16 (4) and 16 (4-A) of the Constitution. As such, collection of data regarding the inadequate representation of members of the Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes, as noted above, is a pre requisite for providing reservations, and is not required when the State Government decided not to provide reservations. Not being bound to provide reservations in promotions, the State is not required to justify its decision on the basis of quantifiable data, showing that there is adequate representation of members of the Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes in State services. Even if the underrepresentation of Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes in public services is brought to the notice of this Court, no mandamus can be issued by this Court to the State Government to provide reservation in light of the law laid down by this Court in C.A. Rajendran (supra) and Suresh Chand Gautam (supra). Therefore, the direction given by the High Court that the State Government should first collect data regarding the adequacy or inadequacy of representation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in Government services on the basis of which the State Government should take a decision whether or not to provide reservation in promotion is contrary to the law laid down by this Court and is accordingly set aside. … …” – SC Judgment dated 07.02.2020 – Mukesh Kumar & Anr. V. The State of Uttarakhand & Ors.
  • Sexual Harassment
    Delhi HC: “Consent, given under coercion, or without volition, is no consent at all.” [Sexual Harassment] –  Delhi High Court Judgment dated 25.11.2019 – Ajay Tiwari Vs. University of Delhi and Ors.
  • Voluntary Retirement
    Employee can withdraw request for voluntary retirement any time before its acceptance.
    Delhi HC: “… … the impugned order dated 04.07.2019 rejecting the petitioner‟s request for withdrawal of her application for voluntary retirement is quashed. The respondents are directed to treat the petitioner to have validly withdrawn her request for voluntarily retirement.”- Delhi High Court Judgement dated 27.09.2019 – Poonam Garg Vs. IFCI Venture Capital Funds Ltd. through its MD & Ors.
  • Internal Complaints Committee (ICC)
    SC: “We, thus, are of the view that no prejudice can be held to be caused to the petitioner by non-supply of the Preliminary Inquiry Report dated 05.11.2016. The copy of memo of charge dated 23.02.2017 has been brought on the record, which also clearly indicates that the charge memo does not refer to Preliminary Inquiry Report dated 05.11.2016. Thus, no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the petitioner by non-supply of Report dated 05.11.2016. xxx
    26. Before we close, we once more make it clear that with regard to charge memo dated 23.02.2017, inquiry conducted by Internal Complaints Committee culminating into Report dated 09.03.2018, it is open for the petitioner to raise all pleas of facts and law before the appropriate authority.” [Preliminary Enquiry Report of ICC] – SC Judgment dated 21.08.2019 – Dr. P.S. Malik Vs. High Court of Delhi & Anr.
  • Sanction for Prosecution
    SC: “15. It is therefore, held that the question of sanction under Section 197, Cr.P.C. with regard to appellants nos.3 and 4 treating them to be ‘public servant’ simply does not arise because of their absorption in the Corporation.” [Sanction for Prosecution] –  SC Judgment dated 19.08.2019 – Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Others V. Pramod V. Sawant and Another
  • Simultaneous Proceedings
    SC: “13. … … It is settled law that the acquittal by a Criminal Court does not preclude a Departmental Inquiry against the delinquent officer. The Disciplinary Authority is not bound by the judgment of the Criminal Court if the evidence that is produced in the Departmental Inquiry is different from that produced during the criminal trial. The object of a Departmental Inquiry is to find out whether the delinquent is guilty of misconduct under the conduct rules for the purpose of determining whether he should be continued in service. The standard of proof in a Departmental Inquiry is not strictly based on the rules of evidence. The order of dismissal which is based on the evidence before the Inquiry Officer in the disciplinary proceedings, which is different from the evidence available to the Criminal Court, is justified and needed no interference by the High Court.” – SC Judgment dated 16.09.2019 – Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, Represented by MD (Admin. and HR) V. Sri C. Nagaraju & Anr. [Simultaneous Proceedings] – SC Judgment dated 16.09.2019 – Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, Represented by MD (Admin. and HR) V. Sri C. Nagaraju & Anr. [Simultaneous Proceedings]
  • Unexplained Delay Of 13 Years In Initiating Inquiry Vitiated The Disciplinary Proceedings
    Delhi High Court: “In considering, whether, delay was vitiated the disciplinary proceedings, the Court has to consider the nature of charge, its complexity and on what account the delay was occurred. If the delay is unexplained prejudice to the delinquent employee is writ large on the face of it. It could also be seen as to how much disciplinary authority is serious in pursuing the charges against its employee. It is the basic principle of administrative justice that an officer entrusted with a particular job has to perform his duties honestly, efficiently and in accordance with the rules. If he deviates from this path, he is to suffer a penalty prescribed. Normally, the disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to take its course as per relevant rules but then delay defeat the justice. Delay causes prejudice to the charged officer unless it can be shown that he is to blame for the delay or when there is proper explanation for the delay in conducting the disciplinary proceedings. Ultimately, the court is to balance these two diverse considerations. It is further observed in the aforesaid judgment that if the delay is too long and remains unexplained, the court may interfere and quash the charges. However, how delay is too long would depend upon the facts of each and every case and if such delay has prejudiced or is likely to prejudice, the delinquent in defending the inquiry ought to be interdicted.” —  Delhi High Court Judgement dated 13.08.2019 – D.P. Sharma M/s BSES Rajdhani Power Limited & Anr. 
  • Departmental Proceeding under the Payment of Gratuity Act
    Departmental proceedings under the Payment of Gratuity Act can be initiated against an employee even after his retirement: Delhi High Court – Delhi High Court Judgement dated 30.07.2019 – J.P. Mahajan Vs. Governing Body, Kirori Mal College & Anr.
  • Non-Filing Of Chargesheet Within 3 Months Cannot Be A Ground For Revoking Suspension Order
    Delhi High Court: “11. We may observe that there can be no hard and fast rule that in all cases where charge sheet is not filed within three months, of suspension, the same would mandatorily be revoked. The need for continuation of the same would have to be assessed on the facts of each case. Most relevant would be the nature and substance of allegations; the materials on which the same is founded; the position held by the concerned government officer i.e. whether he is holding a portion of authority and influence, or he is a lower ranked employee with little or no power to influence others concerned with the matter.
                xxx                               xxx
    14. The petitioner is a senior, highly ranked government officer and was occupying a high position at the time of his suspension. He was in a position to influence witnesses and tamper with the evidence. He has been released on bail. Pertinently, the petitioner has also not placed before us the order passed by the Court granting him bail which may have, if produced, thrown light on the allegations against the petitioner. Considering all these aspects as well, we are not satisfied that the suspension of the petitioner should not have been continued in the present case.” — Delhi High Court Judgement dated 05.07.2019 – Rakesh Kumar Garg V. Union of India & Ors.
  • Adultery
    Rajasthan High Court held that the State Government shall not initiate departmental proceedings on the basis of a complaint of any person against a Government servant alleging therein of the said Government servant having extra-marital relationship with another man or woman whether married or unmarried. – Rajasthan HC Judgement dated 07.03.2019 – Mahesh Chand Sharma s/o Shri Girraj Prasad Sharma vs. The State of Rajasthan and Ors.
  • Migration to General Seat
    SC: Reserved category candidate can’t migrate to general seat after availing age relaxation. – SC Judgement dated 04.07.2019 – Niravkumar Dilipbhai Makwana v. Gujarat Public Service Commission and Ors.
  • RESERVATION FOR SCs/STs IN PROMOTION
    SC: “Finally,   it   may   also   be   noted   that   under   the Government Order dated 13 April 1999, reservation in promotion in favour of SC‘s and ST‘s has been provided until the representation for thesecategories reaches 15 per  cent and  3per  cent, respectively. The State has informed the Court that the above Government Order is applicable to KPTCL and PWD, as well. 
    K   Conclusion
    144.  For the above reasons, we have come to the conclusion that the challenge to the constitutional validity of the Reservation Act 2018 is lacking in substance. Following the decision in BK Pavitra I, the State government duly carried out the exercise of collating and analyzing data on the compelling factors adverted to by the Constitution Bench in Nagaraj.  The Reservation Act 2018 has cured the deficiency which was noticed by BK Pavitra Iin respect of the Reservation Act2002. The Reservation Act 2018 does not amount to a usurpation of judicial power by the state legislature. It is Nagaraj and Jarnail compliant. The Reservation Act 2018 is a valid exercise of the enabling  power conferred  by Article 16 (4A) of the Constitution.” –   SC Judgment dated 10.05.2019 – B.K. Pavitra and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.
    SC: “Thus, we conclude that the judgment in Nagaraj (supra) does not need to be referred to a seven–Judge Bench. However, the conclusion in Nagaraj (supra) that the State has to collect quantifiable data showing backwardness of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, being contrary to the nine-Judge Bench in Indra Sawhney (1) (supra) is held to be invalid to this extent.” – SC Judgment dated 26.09.2018 – Jarnail Singh & Others Vs. Lachhmi Narain Gupta & Others
  • CAPFs an Organized Group “A” Service
    SC: “24.2 Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the objects and reasons of the grant of NFFU as recommended by the 6th Pay Commission, when the High Court has observed and consequently directed that the officers in PB-III and PB-IV in the CAPFs are Organized Group “A” Service and, therefore, entitled to the benefits recommended by the 6th Pay Commission by way of NFFU and thereby has directed the Appellants to issue a requisite notification granting the benefits of NFFU as recommended by the 6th Central Pay Commission, it cannot be said that the High Court has committed any error which calls for the interference by this Court. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court.” – SC Judgement dated 05.02.2019 – Union of India & Ors. Vs. Sri Harananda & Ors. 
  • Court Martial
    SC: Army personnel entitled for legal representation during summary court martial – SC Judgement dated 10.12.2018 – Jaswant Singh Vs. Union of India and Anr. 
  • Gratuity
    The employee having been allowed to superannuate in normal course, it was not permissible to withhold his gratuity under the PG Act: Delhi High Court – 
    Delhi HC Judgement dated 04.10.2018 – Vijay Krishan V. The State Trading Corporation & Ors.
  • Pension and Gratuity
    SC: “It hardly needs to be emphasized that the executive instructions are not having statutory character and, therefore, cannot be termed as “law” within the meaning of aforesaid Article 300A. On the basis of such a circular, which is not having force of law, the appellant cannot withhold – even a part of pension or gratuity. As we noticed above, so far as statutory rules are concerned, there is no provision for withholding pension or gratuity in the given situation.” – SC Judgment dated 13.02.2015 – Union of India & Anr. Vs. Rajbir Singh
  • BENEFIT OF RESERVATION IN THE ORIGINAL STATE
    SC: “… … a  person  who  is  recognised  as  a  member  of Scheduled  Castes/Scheduled  Tribes  in  his  original State, will  be entitled to all  the benefits of reservation under  the Constitution in that  State only  and not  in other  States/Union Territories and not  entitled to the benefits  of  reservation  in  the  migrated  State/Union Territory.” –  SC Judgment dated 30.08.2018 – Bir Singh Vs. Delhi Jal Board & Ors.
  • GRATUITY
    SC: Forfeiture of Gratuity under Payment of Gratuity Act not automatic on dismissal from service; no forfeiture of gratuity for ‘acts involving moral turpitude’, if not convicted by court of law – SC Judgment dated 14.08.2018 – Union Bank of India & Others Vs. C.G. Ajay Babu & Another
  • FALSE CASTE CLAIM
    Times of India: “The Supreme Court on Thursday said anyone found guilty of using a forged caste certificate for getting education and employment will lose their degree and their job.
    In addition, they will also be punished, said the top court.” – SC Judgement dated 06.07.2017 – Chairman and Managing Director FCI and Ors. Vs. Jagdish Balaram Bahira and Ors.
  • SC: “These temporary and badli workers, who are entitled for regularization as permanent workmen in terms of our March 18, 2015 judgment by applying the terms and conditions of the modified award of August 26, 1988, passed by Justice Jamdar, are held to be entitled to full back wages. However, keeping in mind the immense financial burden this would cause to LIC, we deem it fit to modify the relief only with regard to the back wages payable and therefore, we award 50% of the back wages with consequential benefits. The back wages must be calculated on the basis of the gross salary of the workmen, applicable as on the date as per the periodical revisions of pay scale as stated supra.” – SC Judgment dated 09.08.2016 – Tamilnadu Terminated Full Time Temporary LIC Employees Association Vs. S.K. Roy, Chairman, LIC of India & Anr.
  • Hon’ble Supreme Court has ruled that non-disclosure of petty offences of the past, like shouting slogans, in the curriculum vitae should not ordinarily be a ground to deny a job. Other guidelines are also contained in their judgement dated 21.07.2016.  SC Judgment dated 21.07.2016 – Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors.

  • SC: “The issue which arises in such cases is whether there are circumstances from which an inference that extraneous considerations have actuated a judicial officer can legitimately be drawn. Such an inference cannot obviously be drawn merely from a hypothesis that a decision is erroneous. A wrong decision can yet be a bona fide error of judgment. Inadvertence is consistent with an honest error of judgment. A charge of misconduct against a judicial officer must be distinguished from a purely erroneous decision whether on law or on fact. … …” – SC Judgment dated 12.07.2016 – R.R. Parekh Vs. High Court of Gujarat & Anr. – [Disciplinary Action against authorities exercising judicial/quasi-judicial functions]

A. Supreme Court Judgements – Subject-Wise
B. High Court Judgments
C. CAT Judgements

A. Supreme Court JudgementsSubject-Wise

ACRs * Appointment * CAPFs an Organized Group “A” Service * Charge-Sheet * Compassionate Appointment * Conviction * Court Martial * Defending Officer/Friend of the Accused * Delay in Disciplinary Proceedings/Inquiry * Denial of Reasonable Opportunity – Bias * Departmental Inquiry to be conducted in the preferred language of the employee * Departmental Proceeding under the Payment of Gratuity Act * Disciplinary action for lapses while discharging judicial/quasi-judicial functions * Disciplinary Authority/Power to Institute Disc. Proceedings* Ex Parte Inquiry * Exoneration in departmental proceedings ipso facto would not result into quashing of the criminal prosecution * Gratuity * In case of minor penalty, due promotion to be granted in accordance with the rules * Indiscipline – Misbehaviour * Investigation of Corruption Charges against against JS and above rank Officers * Judicial Review – Limitations * Labour Court/Tribunal Award * Leave Rules – Child Care Leave * Major Penalty without Inquiry * Misappropriation * Natural Justice – Quasi-Judicial Authority – Administrative Authority * Pension and Gratuity * Promotion – RRs * Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 * Punishment to be commensurate with Articles of Charge * Punishment under the PC Act * Recovery * Reinstatement – Salary * Reopening of the inquiry qua charge sheet after 30 years or so would not serve any purpose * Reservation * Res Judicata * Retirement Age * Sanction for Prosecution * Second Marriage * Seniority – Ad Hoc Service * Sexual Harassment * Simultaneous Proceedings * Suspension * Transparency in Services (Minimum fixed tenure, recording of oral directions, etc.) * Unauthorized Absence * Unconditional Apology * VRS – Withdrawal of Voluntary Retirement * Uncategorized

ACRs
— “However, it will be open to the appellant to make a representation to the concerned authorities for retrospective promotion in view of the legal position stated by us. If such a representation is made by the appellant, the same shall be considered by the concerned authorities appropriately in accordance with law.”

  SC Judgment dated 23.04.2013 - Sukhdev Singh Vs. Union of India and Others (152.4 KiB, 2,964 hits)

— “… ……If his entry is upgraded the appellant shall be considered for promotion retrospectively by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) within three months thereafter and if the appellant gets selected for promotion retrospectively, he should be given higher pension with arrears of pay and interest @ 8% per annum till the date of payment.”

  SC Judgment dated 12.05.2008 - Dev Dutt Vs. Union of India & Others (71.0 KiB, 2,484 hits)

 Appointment

— Appointment on bogus certificates set aside

  SC Judgment dated 11.02.2015 - Krishna Hare Gaur Vs. Vinod Kumar Tyagi & Ors. (188.4 KiB, 6,081 hits)

— Non-disclosure of petty offences of the past, like shouting slogans, in the curriculum vitae should not ordinarily be a ground to deny a job. Other guidelines are also contained in their judgement dated 21.07.2016.

  SC Judgment dated 21.07.2016 - Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors. (384.7 KiB, 3,670 hits)

CAPFs an Organized Group “A” Service

SC: “24.2 Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the objects and reasons of the grant of NFFU as recommended by the 6th Pay Commission, when the High Court has observed and consequently directed that the officers in PB-III and PB-IV in the CAPFs are Organized Group “A” Service and, therefore, entitled to the benefits recommended by the 6th Pay Commission by way of NFFU and thereby has directed the Appellants to issue a requisite notification granting the benefits of NFFU as recommended by the 6th Central Pay Commission, it cannot be said that the High Court has committed any error which calls for the interference by this Court. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court.”

  SC Judgement dated 05.02.2019 - Union of India & Ors. Vs. Sri Harananda & Ors. (452.7 KiB, 792 hits)

Charge-Sheet
The charge sheet/charge memo having not been approved by the disciplinary authority was non est in the eye of law.

  SC Judgment dated 05.09.2013 - Union of India & Ors. Vs. B.V. Gopinath (289.7 KiB, 14,126 hits)

Compassionate Appointment

— No compassionate appointment without qualification

  SC Judgment dated 20.02.2015 - The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and others Vs. Revat Singh (174.5 KiB, 5,251 hits)

Conviction
— Suspension of Sentence
SC: “16. …In the present case, following the conviction of the respondent by the Special Judge CBI,  the appellant  was acting within jurisdiction in issuing a notice to show cause under Regulation 39(4) of the 1960 Regulations. The learned single judge was correct in dismissing the special  civil  application filed by the respondent challenging the notice to show cause issued by the appellant. The judgment of the Division Bench restraining  the  appellant  from taking  a  final  decision  on  the  show cause  notice pending the disposal of the criminal appeal has no valid basis in law.” Simultaneous Proceedings; Conviction; Suspension of Sentence

  SC Judgment dated 25.02.2020 - Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Mukesh Poonamchand Shah (94.2 KiB, 176 hits)

Court Martial
SC: Army personnel entitled for legal representation during summary court martial.

  SC Judgement dated 10.12.2018 - Jaswant Singh Vs. Union of India and Anr. (55.5 KiB, 1,074 hits)

Defending Officer/Friend of the Accused

SC: Army personnel entitled for legal representation during summary court martial. 

  SC Judgement dated 10.12.2018 - Jaswant Singh Vs. Union of India and Anr. (55.5 KiB, 1,074 hits)

Denial of Reasonable Opportunity – Bias

  SC Judgment dated 18.10.2000 - Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. Vs. Girja Shankar Pant & Ors. (54.2 KiB, 2,235 hits)

Delay in Disciplinary Proceedings/Inquiry

— It is a settled legal proposition that a departmental enquiry can be quashed on the ground of delay provided the charges are not very grave.

  SC Judgment dated 29.04.2013 - Shri Anant R. Kulkarni Vs. Y.P. Education Society & Ors. (275.4 KiB, 9,397 hits)

— SC: “… … we are of the considered view that every employer (whether State or private) must make sincere endeavour to conclude the departmental inquiry proceedings once initiated against the delinquent employee within a reasonable time by giving priority to such proceedings and as far as possible it should be concluded with six months as an outer limit. Where it is not possible for the employer to conclude due to certain unavoidable causes arising in the proceedings within the limit frame then efforts should be made to conclude within reasonably extended period depending upon the cause and the nature of inquiry but not more than a year.”

  SC Judgment dated 16.12.2015 - Prem Nath Bali Vs. Registrar, High Court of Delhi & Anr. (185.6 KiB, 5,897 hits)

Departmental Inquiry to be conducted in the preferred language of the employee

  SC Judgment dated 01.05.2013 - Mithilesh Kumar Singh Vs. Union of India & Others (30.8 KiB, 2,035 hits)

Departmental Proceeding under the Payment of Gratuity Act
Departmental proceedings under the Payment of Gratuity Act can be initiated against an employee even after his retirement: Delhi High Court

  Delhi High Court Judgement dated 30.07.2019 - J.P. Mahajan Vs. Governing Body, Kirori Mal College & Anr. (583.4 KiB, 1,493 hits)

Disciplinary action authorities discharging judicial/quasi-judicial functions

  SC Judgment dated 27.01.1993 - Union of India Vs. K.K. Dhawan (46.1 KiB, 2,654 hits)

Disciplinary Authority/Power to Institute Disc. Proceedings 

  SC Judgment dated 15.10.2012 - UCO Bank & Ors. Vs. Sushil Kumar Saha (227.4 KiB, 2,113 hits)

 
Ex Parte Inquiry

  SC Judgment dated 14.01.2013 - State Bank of India and Ors. Vs. Narendra Kumar Pandey (216.6 KiB, 1,907 hits)

 Exoneration in departmental proceedings ipso facto would not result into quashing of the criminal prosecution

  SC Judgment dated 31.08.2012 - NCT of Delhi Vs. Ajay Kumar Tyagi (99.8 KiB, 2,176 hits)

Gratuity
— Forfeiture of gratuity under the  Rules read with sub­section (6) of Section 4 of the Act, 1972
SC: “… in  view of  Rule  34.3  of  the  Rules,  1978,  the employer has a right to withhold gratuity during pendency of the disciplinary proceedings. ….. In my considered view, after conclusion of the disciplinary  inquiry, if held guilty, indeed a penalty can be inflicted upon an employee/delinquent   who  stood  retired  from  service and  what should be the nature of penalty is always depend on the relevant scheme   of   Rules   and  on  the  facts  and  circumstances  of   each case, but either of the substantive penalties specified under Rule 27  of   the  Rules,  1978  including  dismissal   from  service  are  not open to be inflicted on conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings and the punishment of forfeiture of gratuity commensurate with the nature of guilt may be inflicted upon a delinquent employee provided under Rule  34.3 of  Rules,  1978 read with sub­section (6) of Section 4 of the Act, 1972.”

  SC Judgment dated 27.05.2020 - Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Mahanadi Coalfields Limited Vs. Sri Rabindranath Chaubey (1,006.0 KiB, 27 hits)

— SC: Forfeiture of Gratuity under Payment of Gratuity Act not automatic on dismissal from service; no forfeiture of gratuity for ‘acts involving moral turpitude’, if not convicted by court of law

  SC Judgment dated 14.08.2018 - Union Bank of India & Others Vs. C.G. Ajay Babu & Another (80.0 KiB, 2,229 hits)

In case of minor penalty, due promotion to be granted in accordance with the rules

  SC Judgment dated 30.07.2013 - DHBVNL, Vidhyut Nagar, Hisar & Others V. Yashvir Singh Gulia (163.7 KiB, 3,441 hits)

Indiscipline – Misbehaviour

  SC Judgment dated 24.09.2013 - Davalsab Husainsab Mulla Vs. North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation (223.4 KiB, 5,519 hits)

 
Investigation of Corruption Charges against against JS and above rank Officers

  SC Judgment dated 06.05.2014 - Dr. Subramanian Swamy Vs. Director, Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. (477.7 KiB, 4,824 hits)

Judicial Review – Limitations

  SC Judgment dated 14.01.2015 - K.V.S. Ram Vs. Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corp. (189.4 KiB, 10,403 hits)

  SC Judgment dated 14.08.2014 - The LIC of India & Ors. Vas. S. Vasanthi (232.9 KiB, 3,365 hits)

Labour Court/Tribunal Award

  SC Judgment dated 09.08.2016 - Tamilnadu Terminated Full Time Temporary LIC Employees Association Vs. S.K. Roy, Chairman, LIC of India & Anr. (243.2 KiB, 2,970 hits)

  SC Judgment dated 14.01.2015 - K.V.S. Ram Vs. Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corp. (189.4 KiB, 10,403 hits)

Leave Rules

— Child Care Leave

  SC Judgment dated 15.04.2014 - Kakali Ghosh Vs. Chief Secretary, A&N Administration & Ors. (186.4 KiB, 4,768 hits)

Major Penalty without Inquiry

  SC Judgment dated 13.05.2014 - Risal Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (173.8 KiB, 5,664 hits)

Misappropriation

  SC Judgment dated 05.01.2015 - Diwan Singh Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India & Others (177.6 KiB, 5,109 hits)

Natural Justice — Quasi-Judicial Authority-Administrative Authority-Natural Justice

  SC Judgment dated 18.03.2013 - Nirmal J. Jhala Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. (442.3 KiB, 6,377 hits)

  SC Judgment dated 29.04.1969 - A.K. Kraipak & Ors, etc. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (51.4 KiB, 4,435 hits)

Pension/Gratuity

  SC Judgement dated 14.08.2013 - State of Jharkhand & Ors. Vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava & Anr. (247.5 KiB, 284 hits)

— Disability Pension – “A soldier cannot be asked to prove that the disease was contracted by him on account of military service or was aggravated by the same.” … “Since the disability has in each case been assessed at more than 20%, their claim to disability pension could not have been repudiated by the appellants.” –

  SC Judgment dated 13.02.2015 - Union of India & Anr. Vs. Rajbir Singh (222.7 KiB, 10,366 hits)

Pension and Gratuity

SC: Forfeiture of Gratuity under Payment of Gratuity Act not automatic on dismissal from service; no forfeiture of gratuity for ‘acts involving moral turpitude’, if not convicted by court of law

  SC Judgment dated 14.08.2018 - Union Bank of India & Others Vs. C.G. Ajay Babu & Another (80.0 KiB, 2,229 hits)

Pension can not be can not be denied without the authority of law 

  SC Judgment dated 14.08.2013 - State of Jharkhand & Ors. Vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava & Anr (242.4 KiB, 1,691 hits)

 — Pension relief for all the other employees who have availed SBI-VRS 2000 after having completed 15 years of pensionable service

  SC Judgment dated 26.02.2015 - Asstt. General Manager, State Bank of India & Others Vs. Radhey Shyam Pandey (652.0 KiB, 5,831 hits)

  Promotion

— Consideration for Promotion Consideration for promotion a fundamental right.

  SC Judgment dated 09.01.2014 - Major General H.M. Singh, VSM Vs. Union of India and Anr. (235.1 KiB, 13,799 hits)

RRs

  SC Judgment dated 23.08.2013 - Union of India & Ors. Vs. Shri G.R. Rama Krishna & Anr. (170.4 KiB, 1,852 hits)

Punishment

— Punishment to be commensurate with Articles of Charge

  SC Judgment dated 03.01.2014 - Ishwar Chandra Jayaswal Vs. Union of India & Ors (169.2 KiB, 6,954 hits)

Prevention of Corruption Act,1988

According to the Supreme Court, they are of the opinion that the courts below have erred in law in holding that accused Ramesh Gelli and Sridhar Subasri, who were Chairman/Managing Director and Executive Director of GTB (Global Trust Bank) respectively, were not public servants for the purposes of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

  SC Judgment dated 23.02.2016 - CBI, Bank Securities & Fraud Cell Vs. Ramesh Gelli and Others (205.1 KiB, 3,871 hits)

Punishment under the PC Act

Section 13 of the PC Act

“… … the prosecution, in the instant case, has failed to prove unequivocally, the demand of illegal gratification and, thus, we are constrained to hold that it would be wholly un-safe to sustain the conviction of the appellant under Section 13(1) (d)(i)&(ii) read with Section 13(2) of the Act as well. In the result, the appeal succeeds.” 

  SC Judgment dated 14.09.2015 - P. Satyanarayan Murthy Vs. The Distt. Inspector of Police and Anr. (Non-Reportable) (224.2 KiB, 3,558 hits)

  SC Judgment dated 14.11.2014 - Anotony Cardoza Vs. State of Kerala (150.1 KiB, 7,780 hits)

Recovery
Courts can’t order recovery after quashing appointment

  SC Judgment dated 01.11.2013 - Central Electricity Supply Utility of Odisha Vs. Dhobei Sahoo & Ors. (316.0 KiB, 5,366 hits)

No recovery of overpayment of salary in higher scale if there was no misrepresentation made by the appellant/employee

  SC Judgment dated 16.12.2008 - Syed Abdul Qadir & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (163.4 KiB, 6,363 hits)

  SC Judgment dated 19.09.1994 - Sahib Ram Vs. State of Haryana and Ors. (11.0 KiB, 988 hits)

— Hon’ble SC has summarized 5 situations, “wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law.”

  SC Judgment dated 18.12.2014 - State of Punjab and other etc. Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc. (212.2 KiB, 8,711 hits)

Reinstatement – Salary

  SC judgement dated 22.08.2012 - R.S. Misra Vs. Union of India and Others (177.9 KiB, 2,337 hits)

Reopening of the inquiry qua charge sheet after 30 years or so would not serve any purpose

  SC Judgment dated 29.01.2014 - State of Maharashtra Vs. Vijay Kumar Aggarwal & Anr. (186.1 KiB, 4,773 hits)

Reservation

— Benefit of Reservation in the original state

SC: “… … a  person  who  is  recognised  as  a  member  of Scheduled  Castes/Scheduled  Tribes  in  his  original State, will  be entitled to all  the benefits of reservation under  the Constitution in that  State only  and not  in other  States/Union Territories and not  entitled to the benefits  of  reservation  in  the  migrated  State/Union Territory.”

  SC Judgment dated 30.08.2018 - Bir Singh Vs. Delhi Jal Board & Ors. (802.1 KiB, 2,020 hits)

Benefit on Reconversion 

  SC Judgment dated 26.02.2015 - K.P. Manu Vs. Chairman, Scrutiny Committee for Verification of Community Certificate (331.3 KiB, 9,875 hits)

Caste Certificate/False Caste Claim 

  SC Judgement dated 06.07.2017 - Chairman and Managing Director FCI and Ors. Vs. Jagdish Balaram Bahira and Ors. (497.6 KiB, 9,046 hits)

  SC Judgement dated 08.11.2012 - Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors (324.2 KiB, 2,739 hits)

— DOPT O.M. No. 36012/23/96-Estt.(Res) dated 22.7.1997 regarding lower qualifying marks, lesser standard of evaluation for SC/ST candidates for reservation in promotion is declared illegal.

  SC Judgment dated 15.07.2014 - Rohtas Bhankhar & Others Vs. Union of India and Another (201.2 KiB, 6,618 hits)

Migration to General Seat

  SC Judgement dated 04.07.2019 - Niravkumar Dilipbhai Makwana v. Gujarat Public Service Commission and Ors. (434.8 KiB, 1,826 hits)

No Fundamental Right to Reservation
It has, inter alia, been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukesh Kumar & Anr. V. The State of Uttarakhand & Ors. as under:-
“16.  …  … In view of the law laid down by this Court, there is no doubt that the State Government is not bound to make reservations. There is no fundamental right which inheres in an individual to claim reservation in promotions. No mandamus can be issued by the Court directing the State Government to provide reservations. It is abundantly clear from the judgments of this Court in Indra Sawhney, Ajit Singh (II), M. Nagaraj and Jarnail Singh (supra) that Article 16 (4) and 16 (4-A) are enabling provisions and the collection of quantifiable data showing inadequacy of representation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in public service is a sine qua non for providing reservations in promotions. The data to be collected by the State Government is only to justify reservation to be made in the matter of appointment or promotion to public posts, according to Article 16 (4) and 16 (4-A) of the Constitution. As such, collection of data regarding the inadequate representation of members of the Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes, as noted above, is a pre requisite for providing reservations, and is not required when the State Government decided not to provide reservations. Not being bound to provide reservations in promotions, the State is not required to justify its decision on the basis of quantifiable data, showing that there is adequate representation of members of the Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes in State services. Even if the underrepresentation of Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes in public services is brought to the notice of this Court, no mandamus can be issued by this Court to the State Government to provide reservation in light of the law laid down by this Court in C.A. Rajendran (supra) and Suresh Chand Gautam (supra). Therefore, the direction given by the High Court that the State Government should first collect data regarding the adequacy or inadequacy of representation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in Government services on the basis of which the State Government should take a decision whether or not to provide reservation in promotion is contrary to the law laid down by this Court and is accordingly set aside. … …”

  SC Judgment dated 07.02.2020 - Mukesh Kumar & Anr. V. The State of Uttarakhand & Ors. (87.7 KiB, 2,118 hits)

Reservation for Jats Quashed

  SC Judgment dated 17.03.2015 - Ram Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India (365.7 KiB, 10,269 hits)

— Reservation in Single Post 

  SC Judgment dated 16.05.2008 - Balbir Kaur & Anr. Vs. U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board, Allahabad & Anr. (263.5 KiB, 1,756 hits)

— Reservation for PWDs and Other Judgements

Three percent reservation to PWD in all IDENTIFIED POSTS in Group A and Group B, irrespective of the mode of filling up of such posts

  SC Judgment dated 30.06.2016 - Rajeev Kumar Gupta & Others Vs. Union of India & Others (328.0 KiB, 3,621 hits)

  SC Order dated 12.09.2014 - Union of India and Others Vs. National Confederation for Development of Disabled & Anr. (259.1 KiB, 7,006 hits)

  SC Judgment dated 08.10.2013 - Union of India & Ors. Vs. National Federation of the Blind & Ors. (330.9 KiB, 4,897 hits)

  SC judgment dated 15.02.2008 - Union of India Vs. Dattatray son of Namdeo Mendhekar & Ors (12.8 KiB, 5,092 hits)

  Supreme Court judgment dated 13.12.1999 - Indira Sawhney Vs. UOI (84.2 KiB, 1,248 hits)

  Supreme Court judgment dated 10.2.1995 - R.K. Sabharwal & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors (34.6 KiB, 3,395 hits)

— Reservation for SCs/STs in promotion
(i) No Reservation in Promotions Without Examining Adequacy of Representation in Promotional Posts: Supreme Court
SC: “… … The Resolution has  no  legal  basis. … While it is open for the State to confer benefit even through  an  executive  order  by  applying  mandatory  requirements  as contemplated under Article 16(4A) but the Resolution dated 20.03.2002 is  merely  issued by referring to the instructions of  the Union of  India without examining the adequacy of representation in promotional posts, as held by this Court.” –

  SC Judgment dated 17.04.2020 - Pravakar Mallick & Anr. Vs. The State of Orissa & Ors. (88.9 KiB, 895 hits)

(ii) SC: “Finally,   it   may   also   be   noted   that   under   the Government Order dated 13 April 1999, reservation in promotion in favour of SC‘s and ST‘s has been provided until the representation for thesecategories reaches 15 per  cent and  3per  cent, respectively. The State has informed the Court that the above Government Order is applicable to KPTCL and PWD, as well.
K   Conclusion 
144.  For the above reasons, we have come to the conclusion that the challenge to the constitutional validity of the Reservation Act 2018 is lacking in substance. Following the decision in BK Pavitra I, the State government duly carried out the exercise of collating and analyzing data on the compelling factors adverted to by the Constitution Bench in Nagaraj.  The Reservation Act 2018 has cured the deficiency which was noticed by BK Pavitra Iin respect of the Reservation Act2002. The Reservation Act 2018 does not amount to a usurpation of judicial power by the state legislature. It is Nagaraj and Jarnail compliant. The Reservation Act 2018 is a valid exercise of the enabling  power conferred  by Article 16 (4A) of the Constitution.”   

  SC Judgment dated 10.05.2019 - B.K. Pavitra and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (914.3 KiB, 3,382 hits)

  SC Judgment dated 26.09.2018 – Jarnail Singh & Others Vs. Lachhmi Narain Gupta & Others (429.0 KiB, 5,184 hits)

  SC Judgment dated 11.03.2016 - Suresh Chand Gautam Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (287.6 KiB, 2,531 hits)

— Reservation in Promotion from Scale-I to Scale-II and upward up to Scale-VI in Public Sector Banks

  SC Judgment dated 08.01.2016 - Chairman & Managing Director, Central Bank of India & Ors. Vs. Central Bank of India SC/ST Employees Welfare Association & Ors. (286.3 KiB, 5,516 hits)

  SC Judgement dated 09.01.2015 - Chairman & Managing Director, Central Bank of India & Ors. Vs. Central Bank of India SC/ST Employees Welfare Association & Ors. (325.0 KiB, 14,621 hits)

Reservation for Transgender Persons

  SC Judgment dated 15.04.2014 - National Legal Services Authority Vs. Union of Indian and others (525.2 KiB, 8,156 hits)

Scruting Committee

  SC Judgement dated 08.11.2012 - Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors (324.2 KiB, 2,739 hits)

Uncategorised

  SC judgment dated 15.02.2008 - Union of India Vs. Dattatray son of Namdeo Mendhekar & Ors (12.8 KiB, 5,092 hits)

  Supreme Court judgment dated 13.12.1999 - Indira Sawhney Vs. UOI (84.2 KiB, 1,248 hits)

  Supreme Court judgment dated 10.2.1995 - R.K. Sabharwal & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors (34.6 KiB, 3,395 hits)

Res Judicata

  SC Judgment dated 11.02.2015 - Krishna Hare Gaur Vs. Vinod Kumar Tyagi & Ors. (188.4 KiB, 6,081 hits)

Retirement Age

  SC Judgment dated 24.09.2014 - Union of India & Ors. Vs. Atul Shukla etc. (321.4 KiB, 5,615 hits)

Sanction for Prosecution

  SC Judgment dated 19.08.2019 - Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Others V. Pramod V. Sawant and Another (375.5 KiB, 357 hits)

Second Marriage

  SC Judgment dated 09.02.2015 - Khursheed Ahmad Khan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (207.4 KiB, 10,267 hits)

Seniority – Ad Hoc Service

  SC judgement dated 22.08.2012 - State of Haryana & Others Vs. Vijay Singh and Others (65.3 KiB, 2,960 hits)

Sexual Harassment at Workplace

Compensation to Aggrieved/Complainant * Preliminary Enquiry Report of ICC * Uncategorised

— Compensation of Rs.1,00,000/­ for Improper Handling of Complaint
Hon’ble SC has, inter alia, held –
– The   impugned   order   of   compulsory   retirement   passed   under Rule 135 against the appellant/petitioner is valid and legal and the decision of the High Court in this regard stands confirmed subject, however, to modification thereof to the extent indicated in the judgment.
– The   respondent(s) (Union of India) was directed to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/­ to the appellant/petitioner for violation of her fundamental rights to life and dignity ­ as a result of the improper handling of her complaint of sexual harassment.

  SC Judgment dated 24.04.2020 - Nisha Priya Bhatia Vs. Union of India & Anr. (600.5 KiB, 104 hits)

— Preliminary Enquiry Report of ICC
SC: “We, thus, are of the view that no prejudice can be held to be caused to the petitioner by non-supply of the Preliminary Inquiry Report dated 05.11.2016. The copy of memo of charge dated 23.02.2017 has been brought on the record, which also clearly indicates that the charge memo does not refer to Preliminary Inquiry Report dated 05.11.2016. Thus, no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the petitioner by non-supply of Report dated 05.11.2016. xxx
26. Before we close, we once more make it clear that with regard to charge memo dated 23.02.2017, inquiry conducted by Internal Complaints Committee culminating into Report dated 09.03.2018, it is open for the petitioner to raise all pleas of facts and law before the appropriate authority.” [Preliminary Enquiry Report of ICC]

  SC Judgment dated 21.08.2019 - Dr. P.S. Malik Vs. High Court of Delhi & Anr. (125.0 KiB, 419 hits)

— Uncategorised

  SC Judgment dated 18.12.2014 - Additional District and Sessions Judge 'X' Vs. Registrar General, High Court of Madhya Pradesh and others (378.3 KiB, 8,008 hits)

  SC Judgment dated 19.10.2012 - Medha Kotwal Lele and others Vs. Union of India and others (265.9 KiB, 1,203 hits)

  SC Judgment dated 20.01.1999 - Apparel Promotion Council Vs. A.K. Chopra (46.0 KiB, 1,511 hits)

  SC Judgment dated 13.08.1997 - Visakha & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others (37.3 KiB, 909 hits)

Simultaneous Proceedings
— SC: “16. …In the present case, following the conviction of the respondent by the Special Judge CBI,  the appellant  was acting within jurisdiction in issuing a notice to show cause under Regulation 39(4) of the 1960 Regulations. The learned single judge was correct in dismissing the special  civil  application filed by the respondent challenging the notice to show cause issued by the appellant. The judgment of the Division Bench restraining  the  appellant  from taking  a  final  decision  on  the  show cause  notice pending the disposal of the criminal appeal has no valid basis in law.” [Simultaneous Proceedings; Conviction; Suspension of Sentence]

  SC Judgment dated 25.02.2020 - Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Mukesh Poonamchand Shah (94.2 KiB, 176 hits)

— SC: “Para 10 … …. This Court was of the opinion that departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar. However, it is desirable to stay departmental inquiry till conclusion of the criminal case if the departmental proceedings and criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and the charge in the criminal case against the delinquent employee is of a grave nature which involves complicated questions of law and fact.”

  SC Judgment dated 16.09.2019 - Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, Represented by MD (Admin. and HR) V. Sri C. Nagaraju & Anr. (66.3 KiB, 357 hits)

—SC: “13. … … It is settled law that the acquittal by a Criminal Court does not preclude a Departmental Inquiry against the delinquent officer. The Disciplinary Authority is not bound by the judgment of the Criminal Court if the evidence that is produced in the Departmental Inquiry is different from that produced during the criminal trial. The object of a Departmental Inquiry is to find out whether the delinquent is guilty of misconduct under the conduct rules for the purpose of determining whether he should be continued in service. The standard of proof in a Departmental Inquiry is not strictly based on the rules of evidence. The order of dismissal which is based on the evidence before the Inquiry Officer in the disciplinary proceedings, which is different from the evidence available to the Criminal Court, is justified and needed no interference by the High Court.” – SC Judgment dated 16.09.2019 – Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, Represented by MD (Admin. and HR) V. Sri C. Nagaraju & Anr. [Simultaneous Proceedings]

  SC Judgment dated 16.09.2019 - Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, Represented by MD (Admin. and HR) V. Sri C. Nagaraju & Anr. [Simultaneous Proceedings] (66.3 KiB, 355 hits)

An employee, sacked following disciplinary proceedings, cannot seek reinstatement as a “matter of right” after acquittal from a criminal court on the same charges 

  SC Judgement dated 28.11.2013 - State of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. Sankar Ghosh (184.7 KiB, 6,224 hits)

— SC: “In the peculiar circumstances of the case, specially having regard to the fact that the appellant is undergoing this agony since 1985 despite having been acquitted by the criminal court in 1987, we would not direct any fresh departmental inquiry to be instituted against him on the same set of facts. The appellant shall be reinstated forthwith on the post of Security Officer and shall also be paid entire arrears of salary, together with all allowances from the date of suspension till his reinstatement, within three months. The appellant would also be entitled to his cost which is quantified as Rs.15,000/-.”

  SC Judgment dated 30.03.1999 - Capt. M. Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Anr. (50.2 KiB, 378 hits)

Suspension
… the currency of a Suspension Order should not extend beyond three months if within this period the Memorandum of Charges/Chargesheet is not served on the delinquent officer/employee; if the Memorandum of Charges/Chargesheet is served a reasoned order must be passed for the extension of the suspension.”

  SC Judgment dated 16.02.2015 - Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India & Anr. (231.4 KiB, 9,744 hits)

Termination

  SC Judgment dated 13.01.2015 - Jasmer Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Anr. (196.1 KiB, 10,388 hits)

 Transparency in Services (Minimum fixed tenure, recording of oral directions, etc.)

  SC Judgment dated 31.10.2013 - T.S.R. Subramanian & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (290.3 KiB, 6,357 hits)

Unauthorized Absence

— Unauthorised Absence

  SC Judgment dated 15.02.2012 - Krushnakant B. Parmar Vs. Union of India & Anr. (163.4 KiB, 2,412 hits)

Unauthorised Absence on Medical Grounds

  SC Judgment dated 07.07.2014 - Chhel Singh Vs. M.G.B. Gramin Bank Pali & Ors (134.3 KiB, 4,079 hits)

Unconditional Apology

  SC Judgment dated 29.07.2013 - Lucknow K. Gramin Bank (Now Allahabad, UP Gramin Bank) & Anr. Vs. Rajendra Singh (217.8 KiB, 1,172 hits)

VRS Pension relief for all the other employees who have availed SBI-VRS 2000 after having completed 15 years of pensionable service

  SC Judgment dated 26.02.2015 - Asstt. General Manager, State Bank of India & Others Vs. Radhey Shyam Pandey (652.0 KiB, 5,831 hits)

Withdrawal of Voluntary Retirement

  SC Judgment dated 22.07.2008 - Director General ESIC & Anr. Vs. Puroshottam Malani (69.4 KiB, 4,081 hits)

Uncategorized

  SC Judgement dated 19.08.2011 - State of UP & Ors. Vs. Luxmi Kant Shukla (149.9 KiB, 1,353 hits)

  SC judgement dated 01.03.2011 - State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur Vs. Nemi Chand Nalwaya (51.3 KiB, 1,699 hits)

  SC judgement dated 27.08.2010 - Union of India & anr. vs. Bhaskarendu Datta Majumdar (118.7 KiB, 3,822 hits)

  SC judgement dated 18.08.2010 - Union of India & ors. vs. P.C. Ramakrishnayya (152.7 KiB, 2,655 hits)

  SC Judgement dated 13.08.2010 - State of M.P. vs. Harishankr Bhagwan Tripathi (93.7 KiB, 1,976 hits)

  SC Judgement dated 12.08.2010 - M.A.A. Annamalai vs. State of Kerala & another (158.4 KiB, 1,955 hits)

  SC judgment dated 15.02.2008 - Union of India Vs. Dattatray son of Namdeo Mendhekar & Ors (12.8 KiB, 5,092 hits)

  SC Judgment dated 19.12.2008 - Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National bank & Ors. (128.8 KiB, 2,172 hits)

  SC Judgment dated 29.10.1971 - Union of India Vs. Sardar Bahadur (34.2 KiB, 2,032 hits)

B. High Court Judgements

Adultery * Compulsory Retirement * Delay in conducting departmental inquiry * Gratuity * Habitual Indebtedness * Pension * Reservation for PWDs * Sexual Harassment * Suspension * Voluntary Retirement

Adultery
Rajasthan High Court held that the State Government shall not initiate departmental proceedings on the basis of a complaint of any person against a Government servant alleging therein of the said Government servant having extra-marital relationship with another man or woman whether married or unmarried.

  Rajasthan HC Judgement dated 07.03.2019 - Mahesh Chand Sharma s/o Shri Girraj Prasad Sharma vs. The State of Rajasthan and Ors. (248.8 KiB, 582 hits)

Compulsory Retirement“… the order of compulsory retirement is not to be treated as a punishment and carries no stigma. The rule of compulsory retirement has been held to hold the balance between the rights of the individual government servant and the interest of the public administration.”  

  Bombay High Court Judgement dated 07.05.2014 - Mahesh Prabhakar Kamat Vs. Kamba Transport Corporation Ltd., Goa, & Others (149.6 KiB, 3,576 hits)

Delay in conducting departmental inquiry
— Unexplained Delay Of 13 Years In Initiating Inquiry Vitiated The Disciplinary Proceedings

Delhi High Court: “In considering, whether, delay was vitiated the disciplinary proceedings, the Court has to consider the nature of charge, its complexity and on what account the delay was occurred. If the delay is unexplained prejudice to the delinquent employee is writ large on the face of it. It could also be seen as to how much disciplinary authority is serious in pursuing the charges against its employee. It is the basic principle of administrative justice that an officer entrusted with a particular job has to perform his duties honestly, efficiently and in accordance with the rules. If he deviates from this path, he is to suffer a penalty prescribed. Normally, the disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to take its course as per relevant rules but then delay defeat the justice. Delay causes prejudice to the charged officer unless it can be shown that he is to blame for the delay or when there is proper explanation for the delay in conducting the disciplinary proceedings. Ultimately, the court is to balance these two diverse considerations. It is further observed in the aforesaid judgment that if the delay is too long and remains unexplained, the court may interfere and quash the charges. However, how delay is too long would depend upon the facts of each and every case and if such delay has prejudiced or is likely to prejudice, the delinquent in defending the inquiry ought to be interdicted.”

  Delhi High Court Judgement dated 13.08.2019 - D.P. Sharma M/s BSES Rajdhani Power Limited & Anr. (754.0 KiB, 382 hits)

  Delhi High Court Judgement dated 02.07.2012 - Union of India & Anr. Vs. B.A. Dhayalan (304.0 KiB, 4,484 hits)

  Delhi High Court Judgement dated 02.07.2012 - Union of India & Anr. Vs. B.A. Dhayalan (304.0 KiB, 4,484 hits)

Gratuity
— An employee is an employee, casual, ad-hoc or part time, under the Payment of Gratuity Act: Delhi HC
Delhi HC: “The definition of employee in the Act, 1972 also does not speak of any specific categories of the employees for its applicability, be it, regular, ad-hoc, part time, casual etc. etc. As for the payment of gratuity under the subject Act, to assess the quantum thereof, it provides for the definition of wages in sub-Section (s) of Section 2. … … :
The combined reading of sub-Section (e) and sub-Section (s) of Section 2 of the Act, 1972 leaves no doubt that the gratuity is payable to the employees defined under the subject Act and is to be assessed on the basis of the wages / emoluments, within the ceiling limit as provided there-under.” –

  Delhi High Court Judgement dated 17.11.2019 - National Bal Bhawan Vs. Vandana, Roopa Sharma and Ors. (309.1 KiB, 80 hits)

— The employee having been allowed to superannuate in normal course, it was not permissible to withhold his gratuity under the PG Act: Delhi High Court. 

  Delhi HC Judgement dated 04.10.2018 - Vijay Krishan V. The State Trading Corporation & Ors. (450.2 KiB, 986 hits)

Habitual Indebtedness

  Delhi High Court Judgment dated 21.12.2012 - G.C. Verma Vs. UOI and Ors. (47.7 KiB, 762 hits)

Pension 

  Delhi High Court Judgment dated 26.03.2015 - N. Bhardwaja Vs. Union of India & Ors. (221.8 KiB, 3,471 hits)

Reservation for PWDs

  Bombay HC judgement dated 04.12.2013 - National Confederation for Development of Disabled & Anr. (132.5 KiB, 9,111 hits)

  Punjab & Haryana High Court Judgement dated 15.07.2011 - Lachhmi Narain Gupta & others Vs. Jarnail Singh and others (176.8 KiB, 725 hits)

Sexual harassment  — Delhi HC: “Consent, given under coercion, or without volition, is no consent at all.”

  Delhi High Court Judgment dated 25.11.2019 - Ajay Tiwari Vs. University of Delhi and Ors. (1.5 MiB, 477 hits)

— Delhi High Court: “15. Undoubtedly, physical contact or advances would constitute sexual harassment provided such physical contact is a part of the sexually determined behaviour. Such physical contact must be in the context of a behaviour which is sexually oriented. Plainly, a mere accidental physical contact, even though unwelcome, would not amount to sexual harassment. Similarly, a physical contact which has no undertone of a sexual nature and is not occasioned by the gender of the complainant may not necessarily amount to sexual harassment.
16. … … Plainly, all physical contact cannot be termed as sexual harassment and only a physical contact or advances which are in the nature of an “unwelcome sexually determined behaviour” would amount to sexual harassment.” – Delhi HC Judgement dated 31.10.2017 – Shanta Kumar Vs. Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) & Ors. 

  Delhi HC Judgement dated 31.10.2017 - Shanta Kumar Vs. Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) & Ors. (336.3 KiB, 1,812 hits)

Suspension
Non-Filing Of Chargesheet Within 3 Months Cannot Be A Ground For Revoking Suspension Order
Delhi High Court: “11. We may observe that there can be no hard and fast rule that in all cases where charge sheet is not filed within three months, of suspension, the same would mandatorily be revoked. The need for continuation of the same would have to be assessed on the facts of each case. Most relevant would be the nature and substance of allegations; the materials on which the same is founded; the position held by the concerned government officer i.e. whether he is holding a portion of authority and influence, or he is a lower ranked employee with little or no power to influence others concerned with the matter.
            xxx                               xxx
14. The petitioner is a senior, highly ranked government officer and was occupying a high position at the time of his suspension. He was in a position to influence witnesses and tamper with the evidence. He has been released on bail. Pertinently, the petitioner has also not placed before us the order passed by the Court granting him bail which may have, if produced, thrown light on the allegations against the petitioner. Considering all these aspects as well, we are not satisfied that the suspension of the petitioner should not have been continued in the present case.”

  Delhi High Court Judgement dated 05.07.2019 - Rakesh Kumar Garg V. Union of India & Ors. (297.5 KiB, 303 hits)

Voluntary Retirement

Employee can withdraw request for voluntary retirement any time before its acceptance.
Delhi HC: “… … the impugned order dated 04.07.2019 rejecting the petitioner‟s request for withdrawal of her application for voluntary retirement is quashed. The respondents are directed to treat the petitioner to have validly withdrawn her request for voluntarily retirement.”

  Delhi High Court Judgement dated 27.09.2019 - Poonam Garg Vs. IFCI Venture Capital Funds Ltd. through its MD & Ors. (648.8 KiB, 1,712 hits)

C. CAT Judgements

  Report - Analysis of Cases Disposed of by the CAT (As on DOPT website - 17.04.2014) (655.3 KiB, 3,768 hits)

— Charge-Sheet & Annexures must be signed by the Disciplinary Authority on each page

  CAT Judgement dated 27.02.2012 - C. Punnusamy Vs. Union of India & Ors. (18.9 KiB, 6,000 hits)

Note:- It may be noted that the information in this website is subject to the Disclaimer of Dtf.in. If you have a complaint with respect to any content published in this website, it may kindly be brought to our notice for appropriate action to remove such content as early as possible or publish the latest/updated content/event, if any, at info[at]dtf.in.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 3.9/5 (572 votes cast)
Court Judgements On Service Matters, 3.9 out of 5 based on 572 ratings

Check Also

RTI News

RTI: CIC Pulls up CGHS for Not Disclosing Info on Essential Medicine Supply; Now send urgent RTIs to E-mail IDs of Info Officers, says CIC …

RTI NEWSCIC Pulls up CGHS for Not Disclosing Info on Essential Medicine SupplyNow send urgent …

Sign in to browse DTF.in for FREE!

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 3.9/5 (572 votes cast)
Court Judgements On Service Matters, 3.9 out of 5 based on 572 ratings