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

1994 Supreme(SC) 34

A.M.AHMADI, M.M.PUNCHHI, N.P.SINGH
Union Of India – Appellant
Versus
V. P. Seth – Respondent


JUDGMENT

On the respondent V. P. Seth completing 50 years of age on February 28, 1986 his case was reviewed under Rule 16(3) of All India Services (Death-cum Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958 and after perusing his record of service a decision was taken to compulsorily retire him. Pursuant to this decision the impugned order of compulsory retirement dated January 4, 1989 came to be passed by respondent No. 1. This order was challenged by respondent Seth u/ S. 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, on diverse grounds. The tribunal examined the various contentions raised in support of the challenge but upheld the challenge on the sole ground that certain adverse remarks made in the confidential reports of the incumbent had not been communicated to him yet they were taken into consideration in passing the impugned order of compulsory retirement. The tribunal, therefore, directed that the full text of the adverse remarks recorded in the A.C.Rs. for the years 1985-86 and 1986-87 for the period ending 31st March, 1986 and 31st March, 1987, respectively, including those relating to enquiry, may be communicated to the incumbe










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