Complete Supreme Court Annual Digest 2025 [Part-X]

Service LawDisciplinary Proceedings — Judicial Review — Scope of Interference — Proportionality of Punishment — Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001; Rule 18(b) - The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's interference with the dismissal of a CISF Constable who contracted a second marriage while his first marriage was still subsisting - emphasized that judicial review under Article 226 is limited to the decision-making process and not the decision itself - Key Legal Principles: i. Limited Scope of Judicial Review: Under Article 226, the Court is not an appellate authority and cannot reappreciate evidence or substitute its own findings for those of the disciplinary authority if the enquiry was held by a competent officer following the rules of natural justice; ii. Proportionality of Punishment: Interference with a penalty is only permissible if the punishment is "shockingly disproportionate" or "shocks the conscience of the court". Personal hardships or financial difficulties resulting from dismissal do not necessarily render the punishment disproportionate when the act constitutes a clear violation of service conditions; iii. Strict Construction of Penal Rules: Rule 18(b) of the CISF Rules, 2001, which disqualifies or penalizes members for bigamy, is an institutional requirement meant to maintain discipline and must be strictly construed – Appeal allowed. [Relied on B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India (1995) 6 SCC 749; High Court of Judicature at Bombay v. Shashikant S. Patil (2000) 1 SCC 416; Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran (2015) 2 SCC 610; Paras 5-9] Union of India v Pranab Kumar Nath, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1250 : 2025 INSC 1479Service Law – Resignation vs. Voluntary Retirement – Forfeiture of Past Service – Pensionary Benefits – The deceased employee, a conductor with the Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC), resigned in 2014 after nearly 30 years of service citing family circumstances- He later sought to withdraw the resignation and claimed pensionary benefits, arguing that his resignation should be treated as voluntary retirement- Held that as per Rule 26 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, resignation from service entails forfeiture of past service unless withdrawn in the public interest- Since the resignation was accepted and the request for withdrawal was declined, the past service stands forfeited- Re-classifying a resignation as voluntary retirement would render Rule 26 nugatory and obfuscate the legal distinction between the two concepts- Consequently, the appellant is not entitled to pensionary benefits. [Relied on BSES Yamuna Power Limited v. Ghanshyam Chand Sharma and another (2020) 3 SCC 346; Paras 9-12] Ashok Kumar Dabas v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1186 : 2025 INSC 1404Service Law – Payment of Gratuity – Applicability of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 – Section 4, Section 5 – Held, even in cases of resignation, an employee who has rendered continuous service for not less than five years is entitled to gratuity under Section 4(1)(b) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - In the absence of a notification under Section 5 of the 1972 Act exempting the Corporation, the claim for gratuity cannot be denied - The legal heirs are entitled to receive gratuity for the service rendered along with 6% interest per annum from the date of resignation till payment - The respondent Corporation fairly conceded to the release of leave encashment benefits to the family members of the deceased employee - The legal heirs are entitled to receive the amount towards leave encashment. [Paras 10, 11] Ashok Kumar Dabas v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1186 : 2025 INSC 1404Service Law – Recruitment for post of Principal – Determination of eligibility and experience cut-off date – Effect of deferred advertisement – Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the Central Administrative Tribunal's (CAT) order, holding that candidates who acquired the requisite 10 years of teaching experience by the extended closing date of a re-notified advertisement are eligible - Observed that since the initial indicative advertisement was deactivated immediately due to COVID-19 and the selection process had never effectively commenced, the eligibility must be determined as per the subsequent detailed advertisement. [Paras 11] Kailash Prasad v. Union Public Service Commission, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1168Conflict in Advertisement Clauses – Interpretation of 'Eligibility in every respect' – Where a "Notice" in a re-notified advertisement claims eligibility conditions from an earlier deactivated advertisement remain unchanged, but Clause 9(b)of the same detailed advertisement explicitly states that eligibility "in every respect" shall be determined by the closing date of the Online Recruitment Application, a conjoint reading reveals a clear divergence - Held that the eligibility date must be the actual closing date of application submission as prescribed in the detailed advertisement-...

Complete Supreme Court Annual Digest 2025 [Part-X]

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags