Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points: The case involves an employee who was recruited as a Sales Tax Inspector and was subsequently removed from service due to proven misconduct, specifically for demanding illegal gratification and acting with gross impropriety (!) (!) . The employee falsely represented his employment history by claiming he resigned voluntarily due to transfer, when in fact he was removed from service for misconduct. This constitutes suppression of material facts and making false statements, which is considered misconduct (!) (!) . The legal principle holds that misconduct must be clearly prescribed or enumerated in the relevant standing orders or service regulations. Acts not explicitly defined as misconduct cannot be arbitrarily classified as such by the employer after the fact (!) . The court emphasized that penal actions such as removal or dismissal constitute penalties in law, and employees must be given adequate prior notice of what constitutes misconduct. Ex post facto determination of misconduct is not permissible (!) (!) . The court rejected the proposition that conduct not explicitly enumer

Rasiklal Vaghajibhai Patel vs Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1985 Supreme(SC) 4

D.A.DESAI, RANGANATH MISRA
Rasiklal Vaghajibhai Patel – Appellant
Versus
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation – Respondent

Advocates:
VIMAL DAVE

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

The case involves an employee who was recruited as a Sales Tax Inspector and was subsequently removed from service due to proven misconduct, specifically for demanding illegal gratification and acting with gross impropriety (!) (!) .
The employee falsely represented his employment history by claiming he resigned voluntarily due to transfer, when in fact he was removed from service for misconduct. This constitutes suppression of material facts and making false statements, which is considered misconduct (!) (!) .
The legal principle holds that misconduct must be clearly prescribed or enumerated in the relevant standing orders or service regulations. Acts not explicitly defined as misconduct cannot be arbitrarily classified as such by the employer after the fact (!) .
The court emphasized that penal actions such as removal or dismissal constitute penalties in law, and employees must be given adequate prior notice of what constitutes misconduct. Ex post facto determination of misconduct is not permissible (!) (!) .
The court rejected the proposition that conduct not explicitly enumer

Judgment

DASAI, J. :- Petitioner is shown to be guilty of suppression of a material fact which would weigh with any employer in giving him employment and therefore, the case of the petitioner does not merit consideration under Art, 136 of the Constitution and his petition for special leave to appeal against the decision of Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Special Application No. 4649 of 1981 dated November 28, 1983 must accordingly fail but this short epistle became a compelling necessity in view of the statement of law appearing in the judgment of the High Court which if permitted to go uncorrected, some innocent person may suffer in future. That is the only justification for this short order.

2. The petitioner on his application was recruited in the Sales Tax Department on September 30, 1950 and at the relevant time he was working as Sales Tax Inspector. By an order dated January 31, 1964 of the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Gujarat State, the petitioner who was at the relevant time working as Sales Tax Inspector was charged with misconduct of gross negligence and acting with gross impropriety in demanding illegal gratification, and as these charges were held proved, the Co

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1985 Supreme(SC) 4

D.A.DESAI, RANGANATH MISRARasiklal Vaghajibhai Patel – AppellantVersusAhmedabad Municipal Corporation – Respondent

Cases Referred (1)

D.A.DESAI, RANGANATH MISRA
Rasiklal Vaghajibhai Patel – Appellant
Versus
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation – Respondent