Art 311 Doesn't Mean Only Appointing Authority Can Initiate Disciplinary Action Against Govt Servant : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that the appointing authority is not required to initiate disciplinary proceedings against a state employee. Referring to Article 311(1) of the Constitution, the Court clarified that while the appointing authority's approval is necessary for dismissal, it is not required for initiating disciplinary action.Holding so, the bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and...

Rajasthan HC Orders Regularization Of Govt Employee Withdrawn Citing Educational Criteria Despite Favourable Court Orders, Fines ₹2 Lakh

The Rajasthan High Court has quashed an order withdrawing regularization of a government employee due to non-fufilment of educational qualification, after noting that the order was not only against the categorical directions of the court's division bench which was upheld by Supreme Court but also violated judicial precedents.In doing so the court found that the issue of the...

Appellate Authority Must Consider Prior Judicial Observations When Reconsidering Disciplinary Action: Kerala HC

Kerala High Court: A Division Bench of Justices Anil K. Narendran and Muralee Krishna S. dismissed writ appeals challenging an order that remanded a disciplinary case back to the Appellate Authority for reconsideration. The court held that an Appellate Authority must properly consider prior judicial observations when reconsidering disciplinary action and cannot simply adopt a judicial...

Employer Withholding Best Evidence, Grounds To Draw Adverse Inference In Favor Of Employee: Calcutta HC

Calcutta High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) held that an employee engaged as a 'badli' worker for over 37 years was entitled to gratuity. The court rejected the employer's argument that he did not complete the requisite continuous service. The court held that an employer's failure to produce best evidence leads to an adverse inference against the employer,...

Dismissal Is Last Resort; Disciplinary Authorities Must Consider Lesser Penalties Before Extreme Punishment: Chhattisgarh HC

Chhattisgarh High Court: A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal set aside the compulsory retirement of a police constable, finding the punishment to be disproportionate. The court held that disciplinary authorities must consider lesser punishments provided under Regulation 226 of the Police Regulations before imposing major...

Recovery Of Excess Amount Can't Be Permitted If Officer Is Not At Fault: Delhi High Court

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur observed that if an Officer was granted training allowance for the period he was not working as an Instructor, recovery for an excess amount at a later stage could not be permitted as it was undeniably not his fault. The Bench held that any amount recovered from the Petitioner should be refunded...

Repeated Misconduct Justifies Compulsory Retirement Under BSF Rules: J&K HC

High Court of J&K: A single judge bench of Justice Rajnesh Oswal upheld the compulsory retirement of a BSF constable under Rule 26 of the BSF Rules, 1969. The court found the retirement to be justified based on the constable's repeated prior disciplinary infractions. The court also held that the BSF had followed all due process, including issuing a show-cause notice, and held...

Part-Time Teachers In Night Junior Colleges Not Entitled To Pensionary Benefits Under MEPS Rules: Bombay HC

Bombay High Court: A Division Bench consisting of Justices Ravindra V. Ghuge and Ashwin D. Bhobe dismissed a writ petition that was filed by a retired night school teacher seeking pension. The court held that part-time service in a night junior college do not qualify for pension as per the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, and the Maharashtra Employees of Private...

KWA Service | Once Appointed As Assistant Engineer, Right To Opt For Degree Or Diploma Quota For Promotion Remains Open: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court set aside the Kerala High Court's ruling on a seniority dispute between Kerala Water Authority's 'directly recruited' and 'promoted' Assistant Engineers. The Court held that Kerala Public Health Engineering Subordinate Service Rules, 1966 (Subordinate Service Rules) and Kerala Public Health Engineering Service Special Rules, 1960 (Special Rules) govern completely...

Disciplinary Proceedings Can Be Held Pending Criminal Trial Unless Accused Is Prejudiced: Orissa High Court

The Orissa High Court has reiterated that criminal prosecution and disciplinary proceedings can go on simultaneously against a delinquent employee and there is no need to keep the disciplinary actions in standby until the conclusion of the criminal trial.While ingeminating the position of law, the Division Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Savitri Ratho held, “It is,...

Rajasthan HC Orders Woman's Appointment As Clerk Denied For Taking Back Original Documents In Bonafide Belief That Selection Process Is Over

The Rajasthan High Court directed the appointment of a woman as a clerk, who scored more marks compared to candidates in fourth waiting list but was denied appointment on the ground that after issuance of three supplementary select lists and believing the process to be over, she took back her original documents signing a pre-typed affidavit stating that she won't raise any claim to the post...

Daily Wage Workers With 8+ Years Service Eligible For Pension Even If Total Service Falls Short Of 10 Years: HP HC

Himachal Pradesh High Court: A single judge bench of Justice Satyen Vaidya granted pension benefits to a daily wage worker despite initial calculations showing less than the required qualifying service period. The court ruled that daily wage service, when followed by regularization, must be counted towards pension eligibility. The bench further held that workers having 8+ but less than...