|
IMPORTANT DECISIONS
 Anticipatory bail - Grant of - It will not amount to interference in investigation. 2009(2) Apex Court Judgments 741 (S.C.)
Arbitration - Interest - Agreement between parties barred payment of interest - Bar operates not only against pre-reference period but also operates during pendente lite period. 2009(2) Apex Court Judgments 635 (S.C.)
Arbitration award - Inconsistency relating to a clearly separable issue - Award can be modified to that extent only instead of setting aside the entire award. 2009(2) Apex Court Judgments 683 (S.C.)
Civil suit and criminal proceedings u/s 138 NI Act - Acquittal in criminal case - Does not operate as res judicata in civil suit - Plaint cannot be rejected. 2009(2) Apex Court Judgments 688 (S.C.)
Clean hands - Prosecution when does not come with clean hands then genesis becomes doubtful. 2009(2) Apex Court Judgments 764 (S.C.)
Consumer - A demand for any amount due in terms of the unchallenged terms of an agreement, does not furnish a cause of action to the lessee/allottee to approach the consumer forum. 2009(2) Apex Court Judgments 677 (S.C.)
Dishonour of cheque - Notice to be issued within thirty days - Intimation from bank received on 3.12.2003 and notice issued on 2.1.2004 - Held, notice was issued on 31st day and not within 30 days from the date of receipt of intimation from bank - Complaint not maintainable. 2009(2) Apex Court Judgments 705 (S.C.)
Dowry death - Dowry demand - Gap of one year without something more - It does not satisfy the proximity test. 2009(2) Apex Court Judgments 709 (S.C.)
Electricity - Tenant - Person in possession claiming to be a tenant - Electric supply to the premises ordered to be restored - Tenancy to be decided when parties lead evidence. 2009(2) Apex Court Judgments 662 (S.C.)
Facts - admitted need not to be proved. 2009(2) Apex Court Judgments 673 (S.C.)
Plaint - Amendment - Cause of action arising during pendency of suit - Stands on a different footing than the one which had arisen prior to the date of institution of the suit. 2009(2) Apex Court Judgments 663 (S.C.)
Plaint - Amendment - Impleadment of third party - It is not only O.6.R.17 but also O.1.R.10 CPC which is applicable and period of limitation also comes in. 2009(2) Apex Court Judgments 663 (S.C.)
Rent - Residential building let out for commercial purpose without permission of Rent Controller - Violates S.11 of EPURR Act - Landlord and tenant can be fined u/s 19 of the Act - Tenant is also liable to eviction - In such a case it is both S.19 & S.13(2)(ii)(b) which are applicable. 2009(2) Apex Court Judgments 727 (S.C.)
Service - Disciplinary proceedings - Charges should be specific, definite and giving details of the incident which formed the basis of charges - No enquiry can be sustained on vague charges - Enquiry has to be conducted fairly, objectively and not subjectively - Finding should not be perverse or unreasonable, nor the same should be based on conjunctures and surmises. 2009(2) Apex Court Judgments 734 (S.C.)
Service - Dismissal - In the year 1992 and challenged in the year 2005 - Dismissal was on ground of conviction in a criminal case - Conviction set aside by a superior forum - Delay condoned. 2009(2) Apex Court Judgments 667 (S.C.)
Service - Dismissal - Order of dismissal can be passed either by appointing authority or by any other authority to which the appointing authority is subordinate. 2009(2) Apex Court Judgments 626 (S.C.)
Weapon of offence - Different to that sent to Ballistic Expert and used in commission of offence - Very vital to discard the truthfulness of the prosecution case. 2009(2) Apex Court Judgments 748 (S.C.)
SUBJECT INDEX
Arbitration Act, 1940
Arbitration Act, 1940 - Interest - There is no specific provision relating to power of Arbitrator to award interest - Arbitrator can award interest for pre-reference period, pendente lite and future period if there is no express bar in the contract regrading award of interest. 2009(2) Apex Court Judgments 635 (S.C.)
Arbitration Act, 1940, Interest Act, 1978, S.3(i) - Arbitration award - Interest - Pre-reference period - Interest for pre-reference period can only be allowed if there was an agreement to that effect or if it was allowable under the Interest Act, 1978. 2009(2) Apex Court Judgments 635 (S.C.)
Arbitration Act, 1940, Ss.30, 33 - Arbitration award - Setting aside - Scope of interference by Courts is limited - Court considering an application u/ss 30 & 33 of the Act does not sit in appeal and cannot reassess or reappreciate evidence or examine the sufficiency or otherwise of the evidence - Award of arbitrator can only be challenged on grounds mentioned in the provisions of Ss.30 & 33 of the Act - Court can interfere when there is any error apparent on the face of the award or when the arbitrator misconducted himself or the proceedings. 2009(2) Apex Court Judgments 683 (S.C.)
Arbitration Act, 1940, Ss.30, 33 - Arbitration award - Setting aside - Inconsistency relating to a clearly separable issue - Award can be modified to that extent only instead of setting aside the entire award. 2009(2) Apex Court Judgments 683 (S.C.)
Arbitration Act, 1940, Ss.30, 33 - Arbitration award - Setting aside - Part of goods supplied rejected on ground of being defective and sub-standard - In absence of any evidence about their quality or personal inspection, the arbitrator could not have assumed that the defects were not major defects, nor could he force the respondent to accept them by providing a 15% cut in the price - Award to that extent is thus arbitrary and inconsistent with the findings about their rejection - It is clearly unsustainable - That portion of the award separated from the remaining award and set aside. 2009(2) Apex Court Judgments 683 (S.C.)
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, S.31(7) - Arbitration award - Interest - Agreement between parties barred payment of interest - Bar operates not only against pre-reference period but also operates during pendente lite period. 2009(2) Apex Court Judgments 635 (S.C.)
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, S.31(7) - Arbitration award - Interest - Future interest - Awarded less than 18% - Not contrary to the provision of S.31(7) of the Act - Unless the award of interest is found to be unwarranted for reasons to be recorded, Court should not alter the rate of interest awarded by the Arbitrator - High Court reduced rate of interest to 6% without assigning any reasons - Such reduction cannot be sustained. 2009(2) Apex Court Judgments 635 (S.C.)
Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989
Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, R.14 - Learner's licence - There is no automatic renewal of learner's licence. 2009(2) Apex Court Judgments 673 (S.C.) )
Chandigarh Leasehold Sites & Building Rules, 1973
Chandigarh Leasehold Sites & Building Rules, 1973, Rules 12, 3(2), Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952, Ss.6, 7 and 2(b) - Auction of plots on lease hold basis for 99 years - Auction purchaser stopped payment of premium and installments on ground of failure to provide basic amenities - There was no obligation, statutory or contractual to provide amenities and there was no such term of auction - Auction purchaser is liable to pay penal interest and penalty on delayed installments. 2009(2) Apex Court Judgments 646 (S.C.)
Chandigarh Leasehold Sites & Building Rules, 1973, Rules 12, 3(A), Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952, Ss.6, 7 and 2(b) - Auction of plots on lease hold basis for 99 years - Default in payment of premium and installments - Interest - On the date of auction default interest was 12% p.a. which was enhanced to 24% p.a. - Default interest as on date of auction, would apply and not the enhanced rate. 2009(2) Apex Court Judgments 646 (S.C.)
Civil Procedure Code, 1908
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Ss.11, O.7.R.11(d) - Civil suit and criminal proceedings u/s 138 NI Act - Acquittal in criminal case - Does not operate as res judicata in civil suit - Plaint cannot be rejected - Finding in a criminal proceeding is not binding in a civil proceeding - Standard of proof in a civil suit and criminal proceedings is different - In a criminal case the prosecution is bound to prove the commission of the offence on the part of the accused beyond any reasonable doubt - In a civil suit preponderance of probability would serve the purpose for obtaining a decree. 2009(2) Apex Court Judgments 688 (S.C.)
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.6.R.17 - Plaint - Amendment - Altering basic structure of the suit - Held, such an amendment is impermissible. 2009(2) Apex Court Judgments 663 (S.C.)
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.6.R.17 - Plaint - Amendment - Cause of action arising during pendency of suit - Stands on a different footing than the one which had arisen prior to the date of institution of the suit. 2009(2) Apex Court Judgments 663 (S.C.)
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.6.R.17 - Plaint - Amendment - Third party sought to be introduced by way of amendment - It is not only O.6.R.17 but also O.1.R.10 CPC which is applicable and period of limitation also comes in. 2009(2) Apex Court Judgments 663 (S.C.)
Civil suit and criminal proceedings
Civil suit and criminal proceedings - A creditor can maintain a civil and criminal proceedings at the same time - Both the proceedings can run parallely. 2009(2) Apex Court Judgments 688 (S.C.)
Clean hands
Clean hands - Prosecution when does not come with clean hands then genesis becomes doubtful. 2009(2) Apex Court Judgments 764 (S.C.)
Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Consumer Protection Act, 1986, S.2 - Auction of plots on lease hold basis for 99 years - Providing amenities - There was no statutory or contractual obligation to provide amenities or it was not a term of auction - Non providing of amenities - Does not amount to deficiency in service - Complaint not maintainable. 2009(2) Apex Court Judgments 646 (S.C.)
Consumer Protection Act, 1986, S.2(b), (d), (d), (q) and (o) - Consumer forum - Jurisdiction - A consumer forum will have jurisdiction only when : (i) the complainant is a 'consumer' as defined in clause (d) or a person specified in clause (b) of section 2 of the Act; (ii) the respondent is a 'trader' as defined in clause (q) or a provider of 'service' as defined in clause (o) of section 2 of the Act; and (iii) the 'complaint' relates to any of the matters specified in clause (c) of section 2, for obtaining any relief provided by order under the Act - Where the complainant is not a 'consumer' (or a person specified in clause (b) of section 2), or where the respondent is not a 'trader' or 'service provider' or where the complaint does not relate to matters enumerated in clause (c) of Section 2 of the Act, the consumer forum will have no jurisdiction either to entertain any complaint or grant any relief under the Act. 2009(2) Apex Court Judgments 646 (S.C.)
Consumer Protection Act, 1986, S.2(c) - A demand for any amount due in terms of the unchallenged terms of an agreement, does not furnish a cause of action to the lessee/allottee to approach the consumer forum. 2009(2) Apex Court Judgments 677 (S.C.)
Consumer Protection Act, 1986, S.2(c) - Consumer - Relief under the Act can only be granted when it is pleaded and proved that there is unfair or restrictive trade practice by a trader, or defects in the goods sold, or any deficiency in a service rendered, or charging of excessive price for the goods sold, or offering of any goods hazardous to life and safety without displaying information regarding contents etc. - If none of these is alleged and made out, the complaint will have to be rejected. 2009(2) Apex Court Judgments 677 (S.C.)
Consumer Protection Act, 1986, S.2(c) - Lease - Interest - Lessee when signs an agreement to pay interest at a given rate from a given date in given circumstances, and does not contend that the term relating to installments or interest is invalid or inequitable, it is not open to the consumer forum to grant any relief. 2009(2) Apex Court Judgments 677 (S.C.)
Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Ss.2(1)(m), 2(1)(d), 3, General Clauses Act, 1897, S.3(42) - Company - Can be consumer and can maintain complaint. 2009(2) Apex Court Judgments 720 (S.C.)
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Prior to 2002 amendment), Ss.2(1)(d), 2(1)(g) - Consumer - Deficiency in service - Non supply of electricity by Power Transmission Corporation to manufacturing company within time fixed under contract - Amounts to deficiency of service - Company is competent to maintain a complaint regrading such deficiency in service in a Consumer Forum. 2009(2) Apex Court Judgments 720 (S.C.)
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.378 - Appeal against acquittal - If on appraisal of the evidence and on considering relevant attending circumstances it is found that two views are possible, one as held by the trial court for acquitting the accused and the other for convicting the accused, in such a situation the rule of prudence should guide the High Court not to disturb the order of acquittal made by the trial court. 2009(2) Apex Court Judgments 748 (S.C.)
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.438 - Anticipatory bail - Grant of - Guidelines laid down by Constitution Bench which the Courts are required to keep in mind while dealing with an application for grant of anticipatory bail reiterated. 2009(2) Apex Court Judgments 741 (S.C.)
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.438 - Anticipatory bail - Grant of - It will not amount to interference in investigation. (741)
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.438 - Anticipatory bail can be granted while a case is under investigation. 2009(2) Apex Court Judgments 741 (S.C.)
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.438 - Grant of anticipatory bail and cancellation of anticipatory bail has to be considered or dealt with on different basis - Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of bail already granted. 2009(2) Apex Court Judgments 741 (S.C.)
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, S.11 - Provision of S.11 of the Act is mandatory. 2009(2) Apex Court Judgments 727 (S.C.)
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, S.11 - Use of a residential building for commercial purposes - A tenant or a landlord is not permitted to convert a residential premises situated in a residential area for commercial use without permission of Rent Controller. 2009(2) Apex Court Judgments 727 (S.C.)
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, S.13(2)(ii)(b), S.11 - Use of residential building for commercial purposes - without permission of Rent Controller - Tenant is liable to eviction. 2009(2) Apex Court Judgments 727 (S.C.)
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, Ss.13, 11 & 19 - Use of a residential building for commercial purposes - Permission as required u/s 11 of the Act to convert the use of a residential building for commercial use not obtained - Violation of S.11 of the Act - Held, when there is violation of S.11 of the Act then both the Sections viz. S.13 & S.19 of the Act can be applied - On such violation tenant or landlord can be punished with fine u/s 19 of the Act and at the same time tenant can be evicted u/s 13(2)(ii)(b) of the Act if the conditions laid down in the said sections are satisfied. 2009(2) Apex Court Judgments 727 (S.C.)
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, Ss.19, 11, 13(2)(ii)(b) - Use of residential building for commercial purposes - Permission of Rent Controller u/s 11 of the Act which is mandatory not obtained - Tenant is liable to eviction - Besides this landlord and tenant is also liable to be fined u/s 19 of the Act - In such a case both sections viz. S.13(2)(ii)(b) and S.19 apply - S.19 of the Act gives an additional right to the authorities to impose penalty if a person contravenes the provisions of S.11 of the Act. 2009(2) Apex Court Judgments 727 (S.C.)
Electricity
Electricity - Tenant - Appellant in possession of suit premises claiming to be a tenant not in dispute - Question whether appellant is a tenant or not shall be gone into at the time of disposal of the suit when parties lead evidence in support of their respective case - Held, electric supply to the premises in question should be restored. 2009(2) Apex Court Judgments 662 (S.C.)
Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948
Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, S.49, Consumer Protection Act, 1986, S.2(1)(d)(i) and (ii) - Statutes - Interpretation - Title of provision or marginal note - Do not afford legitimate aid to construction of the provision - Use of expression in S.49 of the Act "supply of electricity" cannot be automatically understood as sale, merely because marginal note to the section calls it "sale" - It can be interpreted as "service" as defined in the Act of 1986. 2009(2) Apex Court Judgments 720 (S.C.)
Employees State Insurance Act, 1948
Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, S.2(12) - 'Factory' - For holding an establishment to be a 'factory' it must first be established that some work or process is carried on in any part of the establishment that amounts to 'manufacturing process' as defined under section 2(k) of the Factories Act, 1948 - In case the number of persons employed in the establishment is less than twenty but more than ten then it must further be established that the manufacturing process in the establishment is being carried on with the aid of power. 2009(2) Apex Court Judgments 717 (S.C.)
Evidence Act, 1872
Evidence Act, 1872, Ss.40 to 43 - Finding in a criminal proceeding - Not binding in a civil proceeding. 2009(2) Apex Court Judgments 688 (S.C.)
Evidence Act, 1872, S.58 - Facts admitted need not to be proved. 2009(2) Apex Court Judgments 673 (S.C.)
Hindu Succession Act, 1956
Hindu Succession Act, 1956, S.14(1) - Property recorded in appellant's name - In absence of any evidence to the contrary, appellant is the full owner of the property. 2009(2) Apex Court Judgments 680 (S.C.)
Indian Penal Code, 1860
Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-B, Evidence Act, 1872, S.113-B - Dowry death - Death not within seven years of marriage - Cruelty not inflicted soon before death - Neither presumption u/s 113-B Evidence Act is available nor it can be concluded that appellant is guilty of offence u/s 304-B IPC. 2009(2) Apex Court Judgments 709 (S.C.)
Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-B - Dowry death - Dowry demand - Gap of one year - Harassment one year prior to death without something more cannot be considered to be a cruelty which had been inflicted soon before the death of the deceased - It does not satisfy the proximity test. 2009(2) Apex Court Judgments 709 (S.C.)
Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-B - Dowry death - Soon before - Cruelty or harassment should be 'soon before death' - Soon before is a flexible term - Its application would depend upon the factual matrix obtaining in a particular case - No fix period can be indicated therefor - It must undergo the test known as 'proximity test' - What, however, is necessary for the prosecution is to bring on record that the dowry demand was not too late and not too stale before the death of the victim. 2009(2) Apex Court Judgments 709 (S.C.)
Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-B - Ingredients of the provision of S.304-B IPC are : (i) The death of a woman must have been caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances; (ii) Such death must have occurred within seven years from the date of the marriage'; (iii) Soon before her death, the woman must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband; and (iv) Such cruelty or harassment must be in connection with the demand of dowry. 2009(2) Apex Court Judgments 709 (S.C.)
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.307, 325, 147, 148 & 149 - Conviction - Affirmed by High Court - Appeal against - Prosecution suppressed the genesis of occurrence - Injured was declared hostile - In his statement before police he stated that three other persons armed with weapons were also present apart from the present four appellants - In the Court he sated that non else was present at the spot apart from appellants - According to injured he received 28 injuries but as per medical evidence there were only three injuries - Inconsistency between medical and ocular evidence - Other PW was also declared hostile - His evidence did not go to show that incident had happened in the manner deposed by prosecution - Appellants given benefit of doubt - Judgment of trial Court and High Court convicting appellants set aside. 2009(2) Apex Court Judgments 764 (S.C.)
Indian Penal Code, 1860, 307, 324, 304 Part II, Arms Act, 1959, S.25 - Weapon of offence - Rifle of .302 bore sent to Ballistic Expert whereas rifle of .315 bore was used in the commission of offence - The discrepancy and inconsistency in regard to the use and recovery of weapon of offence from the possession of accused is very vital to discard the truthfulness of the prosecution case. 2009(2) Apex Court Judgments 748 (S.C.)
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.324, 307, 304 II, Arms Act, 1959, S.25 - Acquittal by trial Court - Conviction by High Court - High Court discarded the important pieces of evidence on the basis of surmises and conjectures - Testimony of an eye witness does not support the testimony of injured witnesses on material and vital aspects - These discrepancies are vital for disbelieving and discrediting the evidence of eye witnesses - Ballistic expert stated that rifle of .302 bore was sent to him for scientific analysis and not rifle of .315 bore which allegedly was used by appellant at the time of commission of offence - Prosecution has failed to prove that same weapon of offence was sent to Ballistic expert which was recovered from appellant - Testimony of eye witnesses in conflict and contradictions with the medical evidence and ballistic expert report - Order of trial Court acquitting appellant confirmed and order of High Court convicting appellant set aside. 2009(2) Apex Court Judgments 748 (S.C.)
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Ss.2(1), 2(14), 2(21), 3 & 14, 147 & 149, Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, Rule 14 - Licence to drive light motor vehicle - Driving goods vehicle/transport vehicle without authorisation - To drive a transport vehicle a distinct licence is required to be obtained - Driving a vehicle without there being a valid and effective driving licence amounted to breach of conditions of insurance -Insurance company not liable - However, Insurance company directed to pay compensation and recover the same from driver and owner of the vehicle. 2009(2) Apex Court Judgments 641 (S.C.)
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.15 - Driving licence - Renewal - If application is made within 30 days of date of its expiry, the licence continues to be effective and valid without a break as the renewal dates back to the date of its expiry - However, when an application for renewal is filed after more than 30 days after the date of its expiry then licence is renewed only with effect from the date of its renewal - In the interregnum between the date of expiry of the licence and the date of is renewal, there is no effective licence in existence. 2009(2) Apex Court Judgments 700 (S.C.)
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.149 - Accident - Compensation - Insurance company is liable to pay compensation only if accident is covered by the terms of the policy. 2009(2) Apex Court Judgments 673 (S.C.)
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.149 - Duly licensed and effective licence - Accident took place on 5.1.2001 - Appellant was not duly licensed on that date as his learner's licence had expired on 22.12.2000 and he filed an application for grant of licence much later - Held, Insurance company is not bound to reimburse him in terms of the Contract of Insurance. 2009(2) Apex Court Judgments 673 (S.C.)
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166 - Accident - Compensation - Deceased 43 years of age - High Court fixed multiplier of 15 - Considering age of deceased, multiplier applied is on higher side - Multiplier fixed at 10 with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. 2009(2) Apex Court Judgments 761 (S.C.)
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166 - Accident - Compensation - Highest multiplier has to be for the age group of 21 to 25 years when an ordinary Indian citizen starts independently earning and the lowest would be in respect of a person in the age group of 60 to 70 which is the normal retirement age. 2009(2) Apex Court Judgments 761 (S.C.)
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166 - Accident - Compensation - Monthly income of deceased claimed to be Rs.12,000/- p.m. but no proof of income available - Tribunal fixed notional income at Rs.36,000 p.a. on the assumption that deceased as a contractor could have easily earned Rs.3,000/- p.m. - No basis therefor indicated - Compensation reduced to Rs.2,40,000/- with 6% interest from the date of claim. 2009(2) Apex Court Judgments 761 (S.C.)
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166 - Accident - Compensation - Second schedule - Suffers from many defects - Same is to serve as a guide but cannot be said to be invariable ready reckoner. 2009(2) Apex Court Judgments 761 (S.C.)
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, S.138 - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - 30 days - Use of words in the provision is 'within' and not 'from' - Intimation from bank received on 3.12.2003 and notice issued on 2.1.2004 - Held, notice was issued on 31st day and not within 30 days from the date of receipt of intimation from bank - Complaint not maintainable. 2009(2) Apex Court Judgments 705 (S.C.)
Service
Service - Back wages - Dismissal on ground of conviction in a criminal case - Conviction set aside by a superior forum - Dismissal set aside - Since the delinquent was acquitted in appeal posthumously, he is not entitled to back wages - He is entitled to pension only. 2009(2) Apex Court Judgments 667 (S.C.)
Service - Compulsory retirement - "Public interest" applicable to Government servants under the state - It is replaced by `institutional interest' or `utility to the employer' where the employer is a statutory authority or a government company and not the government - When the performance of an employee is inefficient or his service is unsatisfactory, it is prejudicial or detrimental to the interest of the institution and is of no utility to the employer. 2009(2) Apex Court Judgments 695 (S.C.)
Service - Compulsory retirement - In pursuance of a rule/regulation - Formation of a bona fide opinion that continuation of the employee in service will not benefit the institution or be in the interest of the institution (or will not be in public interest where the employee is a government servant), on review of the performance/service record of the employee, on the employee attaining the specified age or completing the specified period of service, is valid and not open to challenge - It is neither a punishment nor considered to be stigmatic - Where the compulsory retirement, is not by way of punishment for a misconduct, but is an action taken in pursuance of a valid condition of service enabling the employer to prepone the retirement, the action need not be preceded by any enquiry and the principles of natural justice have no application - The proper approach of the court would be to consider whether the order is sustainable with reference to the requirements of the relevant rule, rather than examining whether the order could also be construed as a punishment for misconduct. 2009(2) Apex Court Judgments 695 (S.C.)
Service - Compulsory retirement - Show cause notice under the rules cannot be treated as charge memo to invoke principles of departmental proceedings and natural justice - An employee can be retired compulsorily even without such notice. 2009(2) Apex Court Judgments 695 (S.C.)
Service - Disciplinary proceedings - Payment of 1% commission for making payment of allowances - Such a serious charge of corruption requires to be proved to the hilt as it brings civil and criminal consequences - Employee would be liable to be prosecuted and would also be liable to suffer severest penalty awardable in such case - Such a grave charge of quasi criminal nature is required to be proved beyond any shadow of doubt and to the hilt - It cannot be proved on mere probabilities. 2009(2) Apex Court Judgments 734 (S.C.)
Service - Disciplinary proceedings - Strict adherence has to be given to the statutory provisions and principles of natural justice in an enquiry conducted against any person - Charges should be specific, definite and giving details of the incident which formed the basis of charges - No enquiry can be sustained on vague charges - Enquiry has to be conducted fairly, objectively and not subjectively - Finding should not be perverse or unreasonable, nor the same should be based on conjunctures and surmises - There is a distinction in proof and suspicion - Every act or omission on the part of the delinquent cannot be a misconduct - The authority must record reasons for arriving at the finding of fact in the context of the statute defining the misconduct. 2009(2) Apex Court Judgments 734 (S.C.)
Service - Disciplinary proceedings - Vague charge - No enquiry can be conducted against the employee on such a charge. 2009(2) Apex Court Judgments 734 (S.C.)
Service - Dismissal - In the year 1992 - Challenged by wife in the year 2005 - Conviction by Magistrate in a criminal case - Dismissal could not be questioned till Magistrate's order was set aside by a superior Court - Order of conviction set aside by an order passed by a superior forum - Held, there is no delay on the part of the appellant - High Court not justified in rejecting the writ petition on ground of delay and laches. 2009(2) Apex Court Judgments 667 (S.C.)
Service - Dismissal - In the year 1992 and challenged in the year 2005 - Dismissal was on ground of conviction in a criminal case - Conviction set aside by a superior forum - Held, High Court ordinarily not to assist the tardy and indolent person - However, writ Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution may condone the delay in filing the petition if delay is satisfactorily explained - Delay condoned. 2009(2) Apex Court Judgments 667 (S.C.)
Service - Dismissal - Of a civil servant - Procedure laid down in Article 311 Constitution of India be complied with. 2009(2) Apex Court Judgments 626 (S.C.)
Service - Dismissal - Order of dismissal need not to be passed by the very same authority who made the appointment or by its direct superior - Dismissal can be either by the appointing authority or by any other authority to which the appointing authority is subordinate. 2009(2) Apex Court Judgments 626 (S.C.)
Service - Dismissal - Removing authority cannot be subordinate in rank to the appointing authority - Removing authority may be higher in rank to the appointing authority. 2009(2) Apex Court Judgments 626 (S.C.)
Service - Dismissal - Rules provide for an appeal to Government in case of punishment imposed by an authority subordinate to the Government - It does not mean that Government cannot itself undertake the disciplinary proceedings against its officers. 2009(2) Apex Court Judgments 626 (S.C.)
Service - Dismissal on ground of conviction in a criminal case - Conviction set aside by a superior forum - Dismissal ought to be set aside. 2009(2) Apex Court Judgments 667 (S.C.)
|
