SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(SC) 1098

K.RAMASWAMY, G.B.PATTANAIK
R. Parangusam – Appellant
Versus
Chief Electrical Inspector – Respondent


ORDER

Delay condoned. Leave granted.

2. We requested Shri C.S. Vaidyanathan, learned senior counsel to assist the appellant. We have heard the arguments for the State and also Mr. C.S. Vaidyanathan. The Tribunal in the impugned order, while setting aside the order of compulsory retirement from service, remitted the matter to the government to conduct the enquiry afresh after giving opportunity to the appellant and based thereon to pass appropriate orders for fixation of the pension etc. It is not in dispute that the appellant has already retired from service. It is also not in dispute that the advances drawn for construction of the house, allotment of the house in the name of his wife by Housing Board has already been redone. Consequently, there is no detriment caused to the State. Since he had already retired from service, we think, on the facts and circumstances of the case, it is not a case for conducting a fresh enquiry as directed by the Tribunal. The order of the Tribunal is set aside. The Government is directed to consider his case for promotion on par with the juniors who were promoted pending enquiry, and then grant him promotion if he is found eligible with all conseque







Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top