Disciplinary and Transparency Forum – India Diciplinary & Transparancy Forum
More: High Court Judgements * Latest DOPT/CVC/RTI/MOF/CGHS/DPE Circulars/Orders * Court Judgments on Service Matters * NCDRC/Consumer Forum Judgements * Vigilance Clearance * Right to Information Circulars/Orders * Decisions of Central Information Commission – Section-Wise * CGHS Circulars/Empanelled Hospitals/Package Rates * Verification of SC/ST/OBC Caste Status or Claims of SCs, STs and OBCs
Adultery (Sec.497 of IPC struck down) To see High Court Judgments on Service Matters, please click here. Adultery (Sec.497 of IPC struck down)
– SC Judgment dated 04.09.2023 – Sunil Kumar Chaudhary Vs. Union of India & Anr.
The conclusions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in its Judgment dated 11.05.2023 included the following:-
“d. The executive power of NCTD is co-extensive with its legislative power, that is, it shall extend to all matters with respect to which it has the power to legislate;”
“i) NCTD has legislative and executive power over “Services”, that is, Entry 41 of List II of the Seventh Schedule because:
(I) The definition of State under Section 3(58) of the General Clauses Act 1897 applies to the term “State” in Part XIV of the Constitution. Thus, Part XIV is applicable to Union territories; and
(II) The exercise of rule-making power under the proviso to Article 309 does not oust the legislative power of the appropriate authority to make laws over Entry 41 of the State List.” – SC Judgment dated 11.05.2023 – Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India
>>> SC Judgment dated 18.04.2023 – Security Printing & Minting Corporation of India Ltd. & Ors. Etc. v. Vijay D. Kasbe & Ors. Etc. – Referring to FR 11, Hon’ble Supreme Court concluded that there was actually no scope for the respondents to seek payment of Double Over Time Allowance. “It is needless to say that no benefit can be claimed by anyone dehors the statutory rules.”
Therefore, even while allowing the appeals and setting aside the impugned order of the High Court, Hon’ble Supreme Court directed the appellants not to effect any recovery from those to whom payments have already been made.
SC: “18. The criminal case indeed was of trivial nature and the nature of post and nature of duties to be discharged by the recruit has never been looked into by the competent authority while examining the overall suitability of the incumbent keeping in view Rule 52 of the Rules 1987 to become a member of the force. Taking into consideration the exposition expressed by this Court in Avtar Singh (supra), in our considered view the order of discharge passed by the competent authority dated 24th April, 2015 is not sustainable…”. The Respondents were directed to reinstate the appellant in service on the post of Constable on which he was selected pursuant to his participation in reference to employment notice. It was further directed that the Appellant was not entitled for the arrears of salary for the period during which he has not served the force and at the same time he will be entitled for all notional benefits, including pay, seniority and other consequential benefits, etc.— SC Judgment dated 02.05.2022 – Pawan Kumar Vs. Union of India & Anr.
– SC Judgment dated 27.01.2022 – State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. R.D. Sharma and Anr.
– The Supreme Court on June 28, 2021 ruled that reservation for Persons with Disabilities (PwD) mandated by Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, is applicable to promotions as well (State of Kerala vs. Leesamma Joseph). – SC Judgment dated 28.06.2021 – The State of Kerala & Ors. Vs. Leesamma Joseph
Hon’ble Supreme Court, on May 05, 2021, unanimously held that there were no exceptional circumstances justifying the grant of reservation to Marathas in excess of 50% ceiling limit as a Socially and Economically Backward Class.
The bench struck down the Maharashtra SEBC Act 2018 to the extent it held Marathas as a socially and economically backward class as violating the principles of equality. The bench struck down the reservation given to Marathas in job and education. However, the bench clarified that the judgment will not affect the PG Medical Admissions under Maratha quota made till 09.09.2020.
The bench held that there was no need to revisit the 50% ceiling limit on reservation laid down by the 9-judge bench decision in the Indira Sawhney case.
In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court has held by 3:2 majority that the 102nd Constitution Amendment has abrogated the power of states to identify “Socially and Educationally Backward Classes(SEBCs)”. (Source: Livelaw.in) – SC Judgment dated 05.05.2021 – Dr. Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil Vs. The Chief Minister & Ors.
SC: “Although, the sample was received in the office of the public analyst on 20.08.1982 and the report was finalized on 07.09.1982 after the delay of 18 days. There is no evidence that the samples were not tampered within the intervening period, therefore benefit of doubt accrues in favor of the accused. Moreover, the report of the public analyst does not mention that the sample was either “insect infested” or was “unfit for human consumption”, in the absence of such an opinion, the prosecution has failed to establish the requirements of Section 2 (1a)(f) of the Act (See Delhi Administration. v. Sat Sarup Sharma, 1994 Supp (3) SCC 324). Moreover, no evidence has been adduced by the prosecution to prove the offence under Section 16 (1) of the Act either before the trial court or the High Court.” – SC Judgment dated 30.07.2020 – Prem Chand Vs. State of Haryana
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
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.
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.
SC: This (Social Distancing) is not a matter of discretion but duty. … every High Court is authorised to determine the modalities which are suitable to the temporary transition to the use of video conferencing technologies. … The District Courts in each State shall adopt the mode of Video Conferencing prescribed by the concerned High Court. – SC Order dated 06.04.2020 in suo motu Writ (Civil) No.5/2020 reg. Guidelines for Court Functioning through Video Conferencing during COVID-19 Pandemic
SC: “42. … … In the absence of inherent inconsistency between the provisions of the RTI Act and other law, overriding effect of RTI Act would not apply.
(ii) The information to be accessed/certified copies on the judicial side to be obtained through the mechanism provided under the High Court Rules, the provisions of the RTI Act shall not be resorted to.” – (Secs. 2, 4(b), 6(2), 8(1)(a) to (j), 19, 22, 31; Disclosure of Information; Certified Copies of Court Documents)- SC Judgment dated 04.03.2020 – Chief Information Commissioner v. High Court of Gujarat and Another
— 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.
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.
SC: “59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive.” [Secs. 8, 8(1)(j), 9, 11(1), Art. 19(1) of the Constitution; Personal Information such as qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. and Personal Information such as medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc.] – SC Judgment dated 13.11.2019 – Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal
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
SC: “35. These are substantial payments and amount to almost half the expenditure of the Colleges/School and more than 95% of the expenditure as far as the teaching and other staff is concerned. Therefore, in our opinion, these Colleges/School are substantially financed and are public authority within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Act.
36. As far as these cases are concerned, we find from the judgments of the High Court that the aspect with regard to substantial financing has not been fully taken into consideration, as explained by us above. Therefore, though we hold that these bodies are NGOs, the issue whether these are substantially financed or not needs to be decided by the High Court. The High Court shall give both the parties opportunity to file documents and decide the issue in light of the law laid down by us.” [Section 2(h); NGOs] – SC Judgment dated 17.09.2019 – D.A.V. College Trust and Management Society & Ors. v. Director of Public Instructions & Ors.
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]
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.
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
SC Judgement dated 15.02.2019 – Anjali Bhardwaj and Others v. Union of India & Others
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.
SC: “18. In view of the aforesaid discussion, and the anomalies in Section 497, as enumerated in para 11 above, it is declared that:
(i) Section 497 is struck down as unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution.
(ii) Section 198(2) of the Cr.P.C. which contains the procedure for prosecution under Chapter XX of the I.P.C. shall be unconstitutional only to the extent that it is applicable to the offence of Adultery under Section 497.
(iii) The decisions in Sowmithri Vishnu (supra), V. Rewathi (supra) and W. Kalyani (supra) hereby stand overruled.” – SC Judgment dated 27.09.2018 – Joseph Shine v. Union of India
“The law is thus well settled and can be summarised:-
“Even though in law there would be a transfer of ownership of the vehicle, that, by itself, would not absolve the party, in whose name the vehicle stands in RTO records, from liability to a third person … ……
Merely because the vehicle was transferred does not mean that such registered owner stands absolved of his liability to a third person. So long as his name continues in RTO records, he remains liable to a third person.””- SC Judgement dated 14.12.2018 – Prakash Chand Daga Vs. Saveta Sharma & Ors.
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.
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
SC: “Additionally, we think it appropriate to ask the authorities to explore any kind of advanced technology that has developed in the meantime so that other methods can be introduced. We are absolutely sure that if the petitioner would point out, the cognizance of the same shall be taken. We are also certain that the authority shall, with all sincerity and concern, explore further possibilities with the available on-line application/mechanism.” – SC Judgment dated 27.09.2018 – Aseer Jamal Vs. Union of India & Ors.
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.
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
SC Judgement dated 15.02.2019 – Anjali Bhardwaj and Others v. Union of India & Others
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.
“The law is thus well settled and can be summarised:-
“Even though in law there would be a transfer of ownership of the vehicle, that, by itself, would not absolve the party, in whose name the vehicle stands in RTO records, from liability to a third person … ……
Merely because the vehicle was transferred does not mean that such registered owner stands absolved of his liability to a third person. So long as his name continues in RTO records, he remains liable to a third person.””- SC Judgement dated 14.12.2018 – Prakash Chand Daga Vs. Saveta Sharma & Ors.
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.
SC: “18. In view of the aforesaid discussion, and the anomalies in Section 497, as enumerated in para 11 above, it is declared that:
(i) Section 497 is struck down as unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution.
(ii) Section 198(2) of the Cr.P.C. which contains the procedure for prosecution under Chapter XX of the I.P.C. shall be unconstitutional only to the extent that it is applicable to the offence of Adultery under Section 497.
(iii) The decisions in Sowmithri Vishnu (supra), V. Rewathi (supra) and W. Kalyani (supra) hereby stand overruled.” – SC Judgment dated 27.09.2018 – Joseph Shine v. Union of India
SC: “Additionally, we think it appropriate to ask the authorities to explore any kind of advanced technology that has developed in the meantime so that other methods can be introduced. We are absolutely sure that if the petitioner would point out, the cognizance of the same shall be taken. We are also certain that the authority shall, with all sincerity and concern, explore further possibilities with the available on-line application/mechanism.” – SC Judgment dated 27.09.2018 – Aseer Jamal Vs. Union of India & 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
Hon’ble Supreme Court, in its judgment dated 06.09.2018 in the case of Navtej Singh Johar & Ors. Vs. Union of India thr. Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice, has ruled as under:-
“i. In view of the aforesaid findings, it is declared that insofar as Section 377 criminalises consensual sexual acts of adults (i.e. persons above the age of 18 years who are competent to consent) in private, is violative of Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. It is, however, clarified that such consent must be free consent, which is completely voluntary in nature, and devoid of any duress or coercion.
ii. The declaration of the aforesaid reading down of Section 377 shall not, however, lead to the re-opening of any concluded prosecutions, but can certainly be relied upon in all pending matters whether they are at the trial, appellate, or revisional stages.
iii. The provisions of Section 377 will continue to govern non-consensual sexual acts against adults, all acts of carnal intercourse against minors, and acts of beastiality.
iv. The judgment in Suresh Kumar Koushal & Anr. v. Naz Foundation & Ors. is hereby overruled for the reasons stated in paragraph 19.” – SC Judgment dated 06.09.2018 – Navtej Singh Johar & Ors. Vs. Union of India thr. Secretary Ministry of Law and Justice
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.
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
SC: “15) … In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of opinion that the treatment of the petitioner in non-empanelled hospital was genuine because there was no option left with him at the relevant time. We, therefore, direct the respondent-State to pay the balance amount of Rs. 4,99,555/- to the writ petitioner. We also make it clear that the said decision is confined to this case only.
16) ….. we are of the opinion that all such claims shall be attended by a Secretary level High Powered Committee in the concerned Ministry which shall meet every month for quick disposal of such cases. We, hereby, direct the concerned Ministry to device a Committee for grievance redressal of the retired pensioners consisting of Special Directorate General, Directorate General, 2 (two) Additional Directors and 1 (one) Specialist in the field which shall ensure timely and hassle free disposal of the claims within a period of 7 (seven) days. … we are of the opinion that there shall be a timeframe for finalization and disbursement of the claim amounts of pensioners. In this view, we are of the opinion that after submitting the relevant papers for claim by a pensioner, the same shall be reimbursed within a period of 1 (one) month.” – SC Judgement dated 13.04.2018 – Shiva Kant Jha Vs. Union of India
The Supreme Court has Issued a slew of guidelines to protect public servants and private employees from arbitrary arrests under the Atrocities Act. The public servants can only be arrested with the written permission of their appointing authority. In the case of private employees, the Senior Superintendent of Police concerned should allow it. Besides, a preliminary inquiry should be conducted before the FIR is registered to check whether the case falls within the parameters of the Atrocities Act and if it is frivolous or motivated. – SC Judgment dated 20.03.2018 – Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr.
Euthanasia and ‘Living Will’ allowed by Supreme Court. – SC Judgment dated 09.03.2018 – Common Cause (A Regd. Society) Vs. Union of India and Another
SC: “Weighing the need for transparency and accountability on the one hand and requirement of optimum use of fiscal resources and confidentiality of sensitive information on the other, we are of the view that information sought with regard to marks in Civil Services Exam cannot be directed to be furnished mechanically. Situation of exams of other academic bodies may stand on different footing. Furnishing raw marks will cause problems as pleaded by the UPSC as quoted above which will not be in public interest.” (Emphasis Added.) (Sections 8,9,11) – SC Judgement dated 20.02.2018 – Union Public Service Commission, etc. Vs. Angesh Kumar & Ors. Etc.
Service details of employees amount to ‘personal information’ under the RTI Act – SC Judgment dated 31.08.2017 – Canara Bank Rep. by its Deputy Gen. Manager Vs. C.S. Shyam & Anr.
Privacy is a fundamental rights. – SC Judgment dated 24.08.2017 – Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and anr. Vs. Union of India and Ors.
A Public Authority cannot act arbitrarily: SC – SC Judgement dated 24.08.2017 – M/s. Ajar Enterprises Private Limited Vs. Satyanarayan Somani and Ors.
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.
A forcible entry is required for a claim to be allowed under the policy for burglary/house breaking. – SC Judgement dated 22.08.2016 – M/s. Industrial Promotion & Investment Corp. of Orissa Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Anr.
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.
— Employer cannot terminate employee for suppression of criminal case: Supreme Court
SC: “18. The criminal case indeed was of trivial nature and the nature of post and nature of duties to be discharged by the recruit has never been looked into by the competent authority while examining the overall suitability of the incumbent keeping in view Rule 52 of the Rules 1987 to become a member of the force. Taking into consideration the exposition expressed by this Court in Avtar Singh (supra), in our considered view the order of discharge passed by the competent authority dated 24th April, 2015 is not sustainable…”. The Respondents were directed to reinstate the appellant in service on the post of Constable on which he was selected pursuant to his participation in reference to employment notice. It was further directed that the Appellant was not entitled for the arrears of salary for the period during which he has not served the force and at the same time he will be entitled for all notional benefits, including pay, seniority and other consequential benefits, etc. — SC Judgment dated 02.05.2022 – Pawan Kumar Vs. Union of India & Anr.
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.
SC: “… … we declare the impugned memoranda as illegal and inconsistent with the 1995 Act. We further direct the Government to extend 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
SC: “The relief in the present case, when appositely appreciated, tantamounts to a prayer for issue of a mandamus to take a step towards framing of a rule or a regulation for the purpose of reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in matter of promotions. In our considered opinion a writ of mandamus of such a nature cannot be issued.” – SC Judgment dated 11.03.2016 – Suresh Chand Gautam Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
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
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 within 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 time 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.
— Bombay HC judgement dated 04.12.2013 – National Confederation for Development of Disabled & Anr. – Hon’ble Bombay High Court has directed to give benefits of reservation to PWDs in the matter of promotion to posts in the IAS by applying the O.M. dated 29 December 2005 and subsequent Office Memorandum consistent with the aforesaid judgment dated 8 October 2013 of the Supreme Court.
SC: No reservation in single post – SC Judgment dated 16.05.2008 – Balbir Kaur & Anr. Vs. U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board, Allahabad & Anr.
SC: “… ……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
——————————————————————————————–Supreme Court Judgments on Service Matters and Other Subjects
Census (Caste-Based)
Consumer
COVID-19 – Guidelines
Criminal Law Criminal Intimidation * Facebook Comments * Quashing of FIR
DRT Act & SARFAESI Act
Education
Euthanasia and ‘Living Will’
Homosexuality/Gay Sex/SECTION 377
Insurance
Live-In Relationship
Passport
Public Authority
RTI CIC & Information Commissioners, Sec. 8(1)(g) * Sec. 8(1)(j) * Sec. 10 * Sec. 11 * Sec. 20 * 24(1)
To see High Court Judgments relating to RTI, please click here.
SC/ST Act (Atrocities Act)
Service Matters
Transgender (TG) Community
Others/Uncategorized———————————————————-
SC Judgment dated 27.09.2018 - Joseph Shine v. Union of India (1.7 MiB, 1,177 hits)
Benefit of Doubt
SC: “Although, the sample was received in the office of the public analyst on 20.08.1982 and the report was finalized on 07.09.1982 after the delay of 18 days. There is no evidence that the samples were not tampered within the intervening period, therefore benefit of doubt accrues in favor of the accused. Moreover, the report of the public analyst does not mention that the sample was either “insect infested” or was “unfit for human consumption”, in the absence of such an opinion, the prosecution has failed to establish the requirements of Section 2 (1a)(f) of the Act (See Delhi Administration. v. Sat Sarup Sharma, 1994 Supp (3) SCC 324). Moreover, no evidence has been adduced by the prosecution to prove the offence under Section 16 (1) of the Act either before the trial court or the High Court.”
SC Judgment dated 30.07.2020 - Prem Chand Vs. State of Haryana (365.1 KiB, 2,291 hits)
CENSUS (CASTE-BASED)
SC Judgment dated 07.11.2014 - Census Commissioner & Others Vs. R. Krishnamurthy (288.9 KiB, 5,981 hits)
CONSUMER
— Medical Negligence Case
SC Judgment dated 24.10.2013 - Dr. Balram Prasad Vs. Advanced Medicare & Research Institute Ltd. & Another (762.0 KiB, 4,028 hits)
SC Judgment dated 04.12.2015 - New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. (215.0 KiB, 5,090 hits)
COVID-19 – Guidelines for Courts
SC: This (Social Distancing) is not a matter of discretion but duty. … every High Court is authorised to determine the modalities which are suitable to the temporary transition to the use of video conferencing technologies. … The District Courts in each State shall adopt the mode of Video Conferencing prescribed by the concerned High Court.
SC Order dated 06.04.2020 in suo motu Writ (Civil) No.5/2020 reg. Guidelines for Court Functioning through Video Conferencing during COVID-19 Pandemic (57.0 KiB, 1,393 hits)
CRIMINAL LAW
Criminal Intimidation * Facebook Comments * Quashing of FIR
Mere expression of any words without any intention to cause alarm would not be sufficient to bring in the application of section 503 of IPC. But material has to be placed on record to show that the intention is to cause alarm to the complainant. “…in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the court should be extremely cautious to interfere with the investigation or trial of a criminal case and should not stall the investigation, save except when it is convinced beyond any manner of doubt that the FIR does not disclose commission of offence and that continuance of the criminal prosecution would amount to abuse of process of the court.”
SC Judgment dated 20.01.2015 - Manik Taneja & Anr. Vs. State of Karnataka & Anr. (198.0 KiB, 5,226 hits)
Delhi Government
Delhi Govt. Has Powers Over Services In NCT
The conclusions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in its Judgment dated 11.05.2023 included the following:-
“d. The executive power of NCTD is co-extensive with its legislative power, that is, it shall extend to all matters with respect to which it has the power to legislate;”
“i) NCTD has legislative and executive power over “Services”, that is, Entry 41 of List II of the Seventh Schedule because:
(I) The definition of State under Section 3(58) of the General Clauses Act 1897 applies to the term “State” in Part XIV of the Constitution. Thus, Part XIV is applicable to Union territories; and
(II) The exercise of rule-making power under the proviso to Article 309 does not oust the legislative power of the appropriate authority to make laws over Entry 41 of the State List.”
SC Judgment dated 11.05.2023 - Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India (567.7 KiB, 1,429 hits)
DRT ACT & SARFAESI ACT
— Definition of NPA – The amended definition of the expression “NPA” under Section 2(1)(o) of the SARFAESI Act is constitutionally valid.
SC Judgment dated 28.01.2015 - Keshavlal Khemchand and Sons Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Others (392.3 KiB, 7,724 hits)
SC judgment dated 18.03.2011 - Narayan Chandra Ghosh Vs. UCO Bank & Others (137.2 KiB, 1,686 hits)
SC Judgment dated 07.02.2011 - Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (176.8 KiB, 1,529 hits)
SC judgement dated 26.07.2010 - Union Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tondon and others (153.3 KiB, 4,081 hits)
EDUCATION
SC Judgment dated 01.11.2012 - NCTE and another Vs. Venus Public Education Society and others (335.7 KiB, 1,461 hits)
SC Judgment dated 10.7.2012 - Jaipuria Institutes of Management & Ors. Vs. AICTE (13.4 KiB, 951 hits)
Supreme Court Judgment dated 11.02.2005 - Prof. Yashpal & another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others (2.7 MiB, 1,522 hits)
Euthanasia and ‘Living Will’
Euthanasia and ‘Living Will’ allowed by Supreme Court.
SC Judgment dated 09.03.2018 - Common Cause (A Regd. Society) Vs. Union of India and Another (2.9 MiB, 1,660 hits)
HOMOSEXUALITY/GAY SEX/SECTION 377
Insofar as Section 377 criminalises consensual sexual acts of adults in private, is declared violative of Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 of the Constitution: SC
SC Judgment dated 06.09.2018 - Navtej Singh Johar & Ors. Vs. Union of India thr. Secretary Ministry of Law and Justice (2.7 MiB, 1,257 hits)
SC Judgement dated 11.12.2013 - Suresh Kumar Koushal and another Vs. Naz Foundation and others (601.9 KiB, 4,079 hits)
INSURANCE
Accident Claims
SC Judgement dated 14.12.2018 - Prakash Chand Daga Vs. Saveta Sharma & Ors. (26.4 KiB, 1,399 hits)
Liability of Accident
SC Judgement dated 14.12.2018 - Prakash Chand Daga Vs. Saveta Sharma & Ors. (26.4 KiB, 1,399 hits)
— A forcible entry is required for a claim to be allowed under the policy for burglary/house breaking.
SC Judgement dated 22.08.2016 - M/s. Industrial Promotion & Investment Corp. of Orissa Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Anr. (21.7 KiB, 2,118 hits)
SC judgement dated 31.08.2010 - Yadava Kumar vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & another (121.8 KiB, 1,071 hits)
SC judgement dated 22.07.2010 - Arun Kumar Agarwal & anr. vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & others (306.9 KiB, 1,727 hits)
LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIP
SC Judgement dated 26.11.2013 - Indra Sarma Vs. V.K.V. Sarma (328.4 KiB, 4,057 hits)
SC Judgment dated 21.10.2010 - D. Velusamy Vs D. Patchnaiammal - Live-in relationship (136.6 KiB, 3,251 hits)
PASSPORT
SC Judgment dated 24.01.2008 - Suresh Nanda Vs. C.B.I. (19.2 KiB, 6,550 hits)
Privacy
Privacy is a fundamental rights.
SC Judgment dated 24.08.2017 - Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and anr. Vs. Union of India and Ors. (3.0 MiB, 1,937 hits)
Public Authority
A Public Authority cannot act arbitrarily: SC
SC Judgement dated 24.08.2017 - M/s. Ajar Enterprises Private Limited Vs. Satyanarayan Somani and Ors. (405.2 KiB, 5,216 hits)
Right to Information (RTI)
CIC & Information Commissioners, Multiple Sections; Sec. 2(h), Sec. 8, Sec. 8(1)(g) * Sec. 8(1)(j) * Sec. 10 * Sec. 11 * Sec. 20 * 24(1)
— Certified Copies of Court Documents
SC: “42. … … In the absence of inherent inconsistency between the provisions of the RTI Act and other law, overriding effect of RTI Act would not apply.
(ii) The information to be accessed/certified copies on the judicial side to be obtained through the mechanism provided under the High Court Rules, the provisions of the RTI Act shall not be resorted to.” – [Secs. 2, 4(b), 6(2), 8(1)(a) to (j), 19, 22, 31; Disclosure of Information; Certified Copies of Court Documents]
SC Judgment dated 04.03.2020 - Chief Information Commissioner v. High Court of Gujarat and Another (150.2 KiB, 7,208 hits)
— CIC & Information Commissioners
SC Judgement dated 15.02.2019 - Anjali Bhardwaj and Others v. Union of India & Others (205.2 KiB, 8,692 hits)
— Multiple Sections
SC: “42. … … In the absence of inherent inconsistency between the provisions of the RTI Act and other law, overriding effect of RTI Act would not apply.
(ii) The information to be accessed/certified copies on the judicial side to be obtained through the mechanism provided under the High Court Rules, the provisions of the RTI Act shall not be resorted to.” – [Secs. 2, 4(b), 6(2), 8(1)(a) to (j), 19, 22, 31; Disclosure of Information; Certified Copies of Court Documents]
SC Judgment dated 04.03.2020 - Chief Information Commissioner v. High Court of Gujarat and Another (150.2 KiB, 7,208 hits)
SC: “59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive.” [Secs. 8, 8(1)(j), 9, 11(1), Art. 19(1) of the Constitution; Personal Information such as qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. and Personal Information such as medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc.]
SC Judgment dated 13.11.2019 - Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (1.4 MiB, 1,733 hits)
SC Judgment dated 17.09.2019 - D.A.V. College Trust and Management Society & Ors. v. Director of Public Instructions & Ors. (403.9 KiB, 1,019 hits)
SC: “Weighing the need for transparency and accountability on the one hand and requirement of optimum use of fiscal resources and confidentiality of sensitive information on the other, we are of the view that information sought with regard to marks in Civil Services Exam cannot be directed to be furnished mechanically. Situation of exams of other academic bodies may stand on different footing. Furnishing raw marks will cause problems as pleaded by the UPSC as quoted above which will not be in public interest.” (Emphasis Added.)
SC Judgement dated 20.02.2018 - Union Public Service Commission, etc. Vs. Angesh Kumar & Ors. Etc. (141.4 KiB, 11,788 hits)
— SC: “… …lower level economic and financial information, like contracts and departmental budgets should not be withheld under this exemption. This makes it necessary to think when or at what stage an information is to be provided i.e., the appropriate time of providing the information which will depend on nature of information sought for and the consequences it will lead to after coming in public domain. …” [Sections 8(1)(e) and 10 & Art. 19(2) of the Constitution]
SC Judgment dated 16.12.2015 - Reserve Bank of India Vs. Jayantilal N. Mistry (412.1 KiB, 3,418 hits)
SC judgement dated 13.12.2012 - Bihar Public Service Commission Vs. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi & Anr. (231.2 KiB, 1,895 hits)
SC Judgment dated 31.08.2017 - Canara Bank Rep. by its Deputy Gen. Manager Vs. C.S. Shyam & Anr. (448.0 KiB, 16,545 hits)
SC Judgment dated 03.10.2012 - Girish Chandra Deshpande Vs. Central Informtion Commissioner & Ors. (177.5 KiB, 3,712 hits)
SC Judgment dated 16.04.2013 - R.K. Jain Vs. Union of India & Anr. (325.2 KiB, 5,077 hits)
SC Judgement dated 20.02.2018 - Union Public Service Commission, etc. Vs. Angesh Kumar & Ors. Etc. (141.4 KiB, 11,788 hits)
SC judgement dated 13.12.2012 - Bihar Public Service Commission Vs. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi & Anr. (231.2 KiB, 1,895 hits)
SC Judgement dated 20.02.2018 - Union Public Service Commission, etc. Vs. Angesh Kumar & Ors. Etc. (141.4 KiB, 11,788 hits)
SC Judgment dated 16.04.2013 - R.K. Jain Vs. Union of India & Anr. (325.2 KiB, 5,077 hits)
— “Ordering withdrawal of the departmental action, if any, initiated against the PIO, the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed the State Information Commission to decide the appeal filed by the PIO before it on merits and in accordance with law.”
SC Judgment dated 13.12.2012 - Manohar s/o Manikrao Anchule Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr (251.1 KiB, 2,529 hits)
— Cooperative Societies not covered under the RTI Act
SC Judgment dated 07.10.2013 - Thalappan Ser. Coop. Bank Ltd. and others Vs. State of Kerala and others (324.2 KiB, 10,494 hits)
SC: “Additionally, we think it appropriate to ask the authorities to explore any kind of advanced technology that has developed in the meantime so that other methods can be introduced. We are absolutely sure that if the petitioner would point out, the cognizance of the same shall be taken. We are also certain that the authority shall, with all sincerity and concern, explore further possibilities with the available on-line application/mechanism.”
SC Judgment dated 27.09.2018 – Aseer Jamal Vs. Union of India & Ors. (258.7 KiB, 7,552 hits)
SC Judgment dated 13.09.2012 - Namita Sharma Vs. Union of India (683.3 KiB, 1,463 hits)
— Uncategorized
Supreme Court Judgment dated 02.09.2011 - Institute of Chartered Accountants of India Vs. Shaunak H. Satya & Ors. (198.3 KiB, 1,214 hits)
Supreme Court Judgment dated 09.08.2011 - CBSE & Another Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. (264.4 KiB, 1,426 hits)
Supreme Court Judgment dated 18.04.2011 - P.C. Wadhwa Vs Central Information Commission and Ors. (26.2 KiB, 1,250 hits)
SC/ST Act (Atrocities Act)
The Supreme Court has Issued a slew of guidelines to protect public servants and private employees from arbitrary arrests under the Atrocities Act. The public servants can only be arrested with the written permission of their appointing authority. In the case of private employees, the Senior Superintendent of Police concerned should allow it. Besides, a preliminary inquiry should be conducted before the FIR is registered to check whether the case falls within the parameters of the Atrocities Act and if it is frivolous or motivated.
SC Judgment dated 20.03.2018 - Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. (305.4 KiB, 2,536 hits)
SERVICE MATTERS – SUBJECT-WISE
ACRs * Appointment * CGHS * Charge-Sheet * Compassionate Appointment * Conviction * Court Martial * Defending Officer/Friend of the Accused * Delay in Disciplinary Proceedings * Denial of Reasonable Opportunity – Bias * Departmental Inquiry to be conducted in the preferred language of the employee * Disciplinary action for lapses while discharging judicial/quasi-judicial functions * Disciplinary Authority/Power to Institute Disc. Proceedings * Equal Pay For Equal Work Not a Fundamental Right * Ex Parte Inquiry * Exoneration in departmental proceedings ipso facto would not result into quashing of the criminal prosecution * Gratuity * Indiscipline – Misbehaviour * In case of minor penalty, due promotion to be granted in accordance with the rules * Investigation of Corruption Charges against against JS and above rank Officers * Judicial Review * Labour Court/Tribunal Award * Leave Rules – Child Care Leave (CCL) * Major Penalty without Inquiry * Misappropriation * Natural Justice – Quasi-Judicial Authority – Administrative Authority * NGO * Overtime Allowance * Passport * Pension and Gratuity * Promotion – Consideration for Promotion – RRs * Punishment to be commensurate with Articles of Charge * Punishment under the PC Act – Section 13 * 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 * Seniority – Ad Hoc Service * Sexual Harassment * Simultaneous Proceedings * Suspension * Termination * Transparency in Services (Minimum fixed tenure, recording of oral directions, etc.) * Unauthorized Absence * Unconditional Apology * 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, 3,918 hits)
SC Judgment dated 12.05.2008 - Dev Dutt Vs. Union of India & Others (71.0 KiB, 4,513 hits)
Appointment
— Employer cannot terminate employee for suppression of criminal case: Supreme Court
SC: “18. The criminal case indeed was of trivial nature and the nature of post and nature of duties to be discharged by the recruit has never been looked into by the competent authority while examining the overall suitability of the incumbent keeping in view Rule 52 of the Rules 1987 to become a member of the force. Taking into consideration the exposition expressed by this Court in Avtar Singh (supra), in our considered view the order of discharge passed by the competent authority dated 24th April, 2015 is not sustainable…”. The Respondents were directed to reinstate the appellant in service on the post of Constable on which he was selected pursuant to his participation in reference to employment notice. It was further directed that the Appellant was not entitled for the arrears of salary for the period during which he has not served the force and at the same time he will be entitled for all notional benefits, including pay, seniority and other consequential benefits, etc. SC Judgment dated 02.05.2022 - Pawan Kumar Vs. Union of India & Anr. (392.1 KiB, 2,848 hits)
—
SC Judgement dated 06.07.2017 - Chairman and Managing Director FCI and Ors. Vs. Jagdish Balaram Bahira and Ors. (497.6 KiB, 16,518 hits)
SC Judgment dated 11.02.2015 - Krishna Hare Gaur Vs. Vinod Kumar Tyagi & Ors. (188.4 KiB, 8,245 hits)
SC Judgment dated 21.07.2016 - Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors. (384.7 KiB, 5,418 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, 1,741 hits)
CGHS
SC: “15) … In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of opinion that the treatment of the petitioner in non-empanelled hospital was genuine because there was no option left with him at the relevant time. We, therefore, direct the respondent-State to pay the balance amount of Rs. 4,99,555/- to the writ petitioner. We also make it clear that the said decision is confined to this case only.
16) ….. we are of the opinion that all such claims shall be attended by a Secretary level High Powered Committee in the concerned Ministry which shall meet every month for quick disposal of such cases. We, hereby, direct the concerned Ministry to device a Committee for grievance redressal of the retired pensioners consisting of Special Directorate General, Directorate General, 2 (two) Additional Directors and 1 (one) Specialist in the field which shall ensure timely and hassle free disposal of the claims within a period of 7 (seven) days. … we are of the opinion that there shall be a timeframe for finalization and disbursement of the claim amounts of pensioners. In this view, we are of the opinion that after submitting the relevant papers for claim by a pensioner, the same shall be reimbursed within a period of 1 (one) month.”
SC Judgement dated 13.04.2018 - Shiva Kant Jha Vs. Union of India (112.4 KiB, 2,477 hits)
— 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, 17,248 hits)
— 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, 6,741 hits)
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, 1,421 hits)
Court Martial
SC Judgement dated 10.12.2018 - Jaswant Singh Vs. Union of India and Anr. (55.5 KiB, 2,158 hits)
SC Judgement dated 10.12.2018 - Jaswant Singh Vs. Union of India and Anr. (55.5 KiB, 2,158 hits)
Delay in Disciplinary/Inquiry Proceedings
— 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, 12,449 hits)
SC Judgment dated 16.12.2015 - Prem Nath Bali Vs. Registrar, High Court of Delhi & Anr. (185.6 KiB, 9,378 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, 3,015 hits)
SC Judgment dated 01.05.2013 - Mithilesh Kumar Singh Vs. Union of India & Others (30.8 KiB, 2,965 hits)
SC Judgment dated 12.07.2016 - R.R. Parekh Vs. High Court of Gujarat & Anr. (262.1 KiB, 3,338 hits)
SC Judgment dated 12.07.2016 - R.R. Parekh Vs. High Court of Gujarat & Anr. (262.1 KiB, 3,338 hits)
SC Judgment dated 27.01.1993 - Union of India Vs. K.K. Dhawan (46.1 KiB, 3,370 hits)
SC Judgment dated 15.10.2012 - UCO Bank & Ors. Vs. Sushil Kumar Saha (227.4 KiB, 2,859 hits)
CVC Circular dated 11.09.2023 - Observance of Vigilance Awareness Week 2023 (Theme, 'Say no to corruption; commit to the Nation') (4.5 MiB, 3,368 hits)
SC Judgment dated 27.01.2022 - State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. R.D. Sharma and Anr. (198.8 KiB, 2,625 hits)
SC Judgment dated 14.01.2013 - State Bank of India and Ors. Vs. Narendra Kumar Pandey (216.6 KiB, 2,685 hits)
SC Judgment dated 31.08.2012 - NCT of Delhi Vs. Ajay Kumar Tyagi (99.8 KiB, 2,868 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, 2,553 hits)
SC Judgment dated 14.08.2018 - Union Bank of India & Others Vs. C.G. Ajay Babu & Another (80.0 KiB, 3,746 hits)
SC Judgment dated 24.09.2013 - Davalsab Husainsab Mulla Vs. North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation (223.4 KiB, 6,925 hits)
SC Judgment dated 30.07.2013 - DHBVNL, Vidhyut Nagar, Hisar & Others V. Yashvir Singh Gulia (163.7 KiB, 4,172 hits)
SC Judgment dated 06.05.2014 - Dr. Subramanian Swamy Vs. Director, Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. (477.7 KiB, 6,124 hits)
SC Judgment dated 14.01.2015 - K.V.S. Ram Vs. Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corp. (189.4 KiB, 11,970 hits)
SC Judgment dated 14.08.2014 - The LIC of India & Ors. Vas. S. Vasanthi (232.9 KiB, 3,871 hits)
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, 4,060 hits)
SC Judgment dated 14.01.2015 - K.V.S. Ram Vs. Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corp. (189.4 KiB, 11,970 hits)
— Child Care Leave SC Judgment dated 15.04.2014 - Kakali Ghosh Vs. Chief Secretary, A&N Administration & Ors. (186.4 KiB, 6,251 hits)
Major Penalty without Inquiry
SC Judgment dated 13.05.2014 - Risal Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (173.8 KiB, 7,118 hits)
SC Judgment dated 05.01.2015 - Diwan Singh Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India & Others (177.6 KiB, 6,679 hits)
— Quasi-Judicial Authority-Administrative Authority-Natural Justice
SC Judgment dated 18.03.2013 - Nirmal J. Jhala Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. (442.3 KiB, 8,018 hits)
SC Judgment dated 29.04.1969 - A.K. Kraipak & Ors, etc. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (51.4 KiB, 5,903 hits)
NGO
— SC: “35. These are substantial payments and amount to almost half the expenditure of the Colleges/School and more than 95% of the expenditure as far as the teaching and other staff is concerned. Therefore, in our opinion, these Colleges/School are substantially financed and are public authority within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Act.
36. As far as these cases are concerned, we find from the judgments of the High Court that the aspect with regard to substantial financing has not been fully taken into consideration, as explained by us above. Therefore, though we hold that these bodies are NGOs, the issue whether these are substantially financed or not needs to be decided by the High Court. The High Court shall give both the parties opportunity to file documents and decide the issue in light of the law laid down by us.” [Section 2(h); NGOs]
SC Judgment dated 17.09.2019 - D.A.V. College Trust and Management Society & Ors. v. Director of Public Instructions & Ors. (403.9 KiB, 1,019 hits)
— Government staff not entitled to overtime work allowance: SC
SC Judgment dated 18.04.2023 - Security Printing & Minting Corporation of India Ltd. & Ors. Etc. v. Vijay D. Kasbe & Ors. Etc. (238.8 KiB, 1,940 hits)
SC Judgment dated 24.01.2008 - Suresh Nanda Vs. C.B.I. (19.2 KiB, 6,550 hits)
SC Judgement dated 14.08.2013 - State of Jharkhand & Ors. Vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava & Anr. (247.5 KiB, 1,801 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, 12,815 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, 3,746 hits)
–— Pension and Gratuity 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, 2,084 hits)
SC Judgment dated 26.02.2015 - Asstt. General Manager, State Bank of India & Others Vs. Radhey Shyam Pandey (652.0 KiB, 7,536 hits)
— 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, 18,565 hits)
SC Judgment dated 23.08.2013 - Union of India & Ors. Vs. Shri G.R. Rama Krishna & Anr. (170.4 KiB, 2,385 hits)
SC Judgment dated 03.01.2014 - Ishwar Chandra Jayaswal Vs. Union of India & Ors (169.2 KiB, 8,805 hits)
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
SC Judgment dated 23.02.2016 - CBI, Bank Securities & Fraud Cell Vs. Ramesh Gelli and Others (205.1 KiB, 4,904 hits)
— 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, 4,532 hits)
SC Judgment dated 14.11.2014 - Anotony Cardoza Vs. State of Kerala (150.1 KiB, 9,141 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, 6,744 hits)
SC Judgment dated 16.12.2008 - Syed Abdul Qadir & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (163.4 KiB, 8,221 hits)
SC Judgment dated 19.09.1994 - Sahib Ram Vs. State of Haryana and Ors. (11.0 KiB, 1,376 hits)
SC Judgment dated 18.12.2014 - State of Punjab and other etc. Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc. (212.2 KiB, 13,727 hits)
Reinstatement
– Salary
SC judgement dated 22.08.2012 - R.S. Misra Vs. Union of India and Others (177.9 KiB, 2,927 hits)
SC Judgment dated 29.01.2014 - State of Maharashtra Vs. Vijay Kumar Aggarwal & Anr. (186.1 KiB, 6,054 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, 3,436 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, 11,458 hits)
SC Judgement dated 06.07.2017 - Chairman and Managing Director FCI and Ors. Vs. Jagdish Balaram Bahira and Ors. (497.6 KiB, 16,518 hits)
SC Judgement dated 08.11.2012 - Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors (324.2 KiB, 4,089 hits)
SC Judgment dated 15.07.2014 - Rohtas Bhankhar & Others Vs. Union of India and Another (201.2 KiB, 8,027 hits)
SC Judgement dated 04.07.2019 - Niravkumar Dilipbhai Makwana v. Gujarat Public Service Commission and Ors. (434.8 KiB, 5,808 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, 17,457 hits)
— Reservation for Jats Quashed
SC Judgment dated 17.03.2015 - Ram Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India (365.7 KiB, 11,631 hits)
Hon’ble Supreme Court, on May 05, 2021, unanimously held that there were no exceptional circumstances justifying the grant of reservation to Marathas in excess of 50% ceiling limit as a Socially and Economically Backward Class.
The bench struck down the Maharashtra SEBC Act 2018 to the extent it held Marathas as a socially and economically backward class as violating the principles of equality. The bench struck down the reservation given to Marathas in job and education. However, the bench clarified that the judgment will not affect the PG Medical Admissions under Maratha quota made till 09.09.2020.
The bench held that there was no need to revisit the 50% ceiling limit on reservation laid down by the 9-judge bench decision in the Indira Sawhney case.
In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court has held by 3:2 majority that the 102nd Constitution Amendment has abrogated the power of states to identify “Socially and Educationally Backward Classes(SEBCs)”. (Source: Livelaw.in)
SC Judgment dated 05.05.2021 - Dr. Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil Vs. The Chief Minister & Ors. (1.5 MiB, 3,215 hits)
— Relaxation in aptitude test available to SC/ST applicable to the disabled
SC Order dated 08.07.2020 - Aryan Raj Vs. Chandigarh Administration & Ors. (53.0 KiB, 6,323 hits)
— Reservation for PwDs (Handicapped) in Promotion
— The Supreme Court on June 28, 2021 ruled that reservation for Persons with Disabilities (PwD) mandated by Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, is applicable to promotions as well (State of Kerala vs. Leesamma Joseph). SC Judgment dated 28.06.2021 - The State of Kerala & Ors. Vs. Leesamma Joseph (120.0 KiB, 11,897 hits)
(i) Reservation in Promotions: Supreme Court Holds Cadre As Unit For Collecting Quantifiable Data On Adequacy of Representation; Collection Of Data On Entire Service Meaningless
SC Judgment dated 28.01.2022 - Jarnail Singh & Ors. Vs. Lachhmi Narain Gupta & Ors. (194.4 KiB, 3,252 hits)
(ii) 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, 13,083 hits)
(iii) 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, 10,680 hits)
SC Judgment dated 26.09.2018 – Jarnail Singh & Others Vs. Lachhmi Narain Gupta & Others (429.0 KiB, 13,995 hits)
SC Order dated 05.06.2018 - The State of Maharashtra & Anr. Vs. Vijay Ghogne & Ors. (30.6 KiB, 5,711 hits)
SC Judgment dated 11.03.2016 - Suresh Chand Gautam Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (287.6 KiB, 3,787 hits)
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, 6,529 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, 16,459 hits)
SC Judgment dated 16.05.2008 - Balbir Kaur & Anr. Vs. U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board, Allahabad & Anr. (263.5 KiB, 5,022 hits)
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, 4,627 hits)
SC Order dated 12.09.2014 - Union of India and Others Vs. National Confederation for Development of Disabled & Anr. (259.1 KiB, 8,315 hits)
SC Judgment dated 08.10.2013 - Union of India & Ors. Vs. National Federation of the Blind & Ors. (330.9 KiB, 6,333 hits)
SC judgment dated 15.02.2008 - Union of India Vs. Dattatray son of Namdeo Mendhekar & Ors (12.8 KiB, 5,576 hits)
Supreme Court judgment dated 13.12.1999 - Indira Sawhney Vs. UOI (84.2 KiB, 1,752 hits)
Supreme Court judgment dated 10.2.1995 - R.K. Sabharwal & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors (34.6 KiB, 4,837 hits)
SC Judgment dated 15.04.2014 - National Legal Services Authority Vs. Union of Indian and others (525.2 KiB, 12,107 hits)
SC Judgement dated 08.11.2012 - Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors (324.2 KiB, 4,089 hits)
SC judgment dated 15.02.2008 - Union of India Vs. Dattatray son of Namdeo Mendhekar & Ors (12.8 KiB, 5,576 hits)
Supreme Court judgment dated 13.12.1999 - Indira Sawhney Vs. UOI (84.2 KiB, 1,752 hits)
Supreme Court judgment dated 10.2.1995 - R.K. Sabharwal & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors (34.6 KiB, 4,837 hits)
SC Judgment dated 11.02.2015 - Krishna Hare Gaur Vs. Vinod Kumar Tyagi & Ors. (188.4 KiB, 8,245 hits)
SC Judgment dated 24.09.2014 - Union of India & Ors. Vs. Atul Shukla etc. (321.4 KiB, 6,986 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, 1,386 hits)
Second Marriage
SC Judgment dated 09.02.2015 - Khursheed Ahmad Khan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (207.4 KiB, 12,080 hits)
SC judgement dated 22.08.2012 - State of Haryana & Others Vs. Vijay Singh and Others (65.3 KiB, 3,486 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, 1,791 hits)
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, 1,649 hits)
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, 9,411 hits)
SC Judgment dated 19.10.2012 - Medha Kotwal Lele and others Vs. Union of India and others (265.9 KiB, 1,708 hits)
SC Judgment dated 20.01.1999 - Apparel Promotion Council Vs. A.K. Chopra (46.0 KiB, 2,211 hits)
SC Judgment dated 13.08.1997 - Visakha & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others (37.3 KiB, 1,295 hits)
Termination
SC Judgment dated 13.01.2015 - Jasmer Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Anr. (196.1 KiB, 12,240 hits)
SC Judgment dated 31.10.2013 - T.S.R. Subramanian & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (290.3 KiB, 7,726 hits)
— Unauthorised Absence
SC Judgment dated 15.02.2012 - Krushnakant B. Parmar Vs. Union of India & Anr. (163.4 KiB, 3,404 hits)
SC Judgment dated 07.07.2014 - Chhel Singh Vs. M.G.B. Gramin Bank Pali & Ors (134.3 KiB, 4,703 hits)
SC Judgment dated 29.07.2013 - Lucknow K. Gramin Bank (Now Allahabad, UP Gramin Bank) & Anr. Vs. Rajendra Singh (217.8 KiB, 1,592 hits)
Voluntary Retirement Scheme (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, 7,536 hits)
SC Judgment dated 22.07.2008 - Director General ESIC & Anr. Vs. Puroshottam Malani (69.4 KiB, 4,571 hits)
Supreme Court' Order dated 06.05.2014 - Kushalbhai Ratanbhai Rohit & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat (237.1 KiB, 5,382 hits)
SC Judgement dated 19.08.2011 - State of UP & Ors. Vs. Luxmi Kant Shukla (149.9 KiB, 1,732 hits)
SC judgement dated 01.03.2011 - State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur Vs. Nemi Chand Nalwaya (51.3 KiB, 2,152 hits)
SC judgement dated 27.08.2010 - Union of India & anr. vs. Bhaskarendu Datta Majumdar (118.7 KiB, 4,259 hits)
SC judgement dated 18.08.2010 - Union of India & ors. vs. P.C. Ramakrishnayya (152.7 KiB, 3,057 hits)
SC Judgement dated 13.08.2010 - State of M.P. vs. Harishankr Bhagwan Tripathi (93.7 KiB, 2,422 hits)
SC Judgement dated 12.08.2010 - M.A.A. Annamalai vs. State of Kerala & another (158.4 KiB, 2,391 hits)
SC judgment dated 15.02.2008 - Union of India Vs. Dattatray son of Namdeo Mendhekar & Ors (12.8 KiB, 5,576 hits)
SC Judgment dated 19.12.2008 - Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National bank & Ors. (128.2 KiB, 2,551 hits)
SC Judgment dated 29.10.1971 - Union of India Vs. Sardar Bahadur (34.2 KiB, 2,374 hits)
— 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, 1,421 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, 1,479 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, 1,393 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, 7,775 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, 2,670 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, 12,121 hits)
TRANGENDER (TG) COMMUNITY
Hon’ble Supreme Court has, inter alia, directed the Centre and the State Governments to take steps to treat transgender persons as socially and educationally backward classes of citizens and extend all kinds of reservation in cases of admission in educational institutions and for public appointments.
SC Judgment dated 15.04.2014 - National Legal Services Authority Vs. Union of Indian and others (525.2 KiB, 12,107 hits)
