Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Right to Promotion is Legitimate Expectation; Marriage-Based Transfer Can't Defeat It: Himachal Pradesh High Court
12 Mar 2026
Section 4 Official Secrets Act Presumption and Prima Facie Evidence Bar Bail in Espionage Case: Punjab & Haryana HC
14 Mar 2026
Centre Revokes Wangchuk's NSA Detention Amid SC Challenge
14 Mar 2026
No Interference Allowed in Religious Prayers on Private Premises: Allahabad HC Cites Maranatha Precedent
14 Mar 2026
No Proof of Absolute Ownership by Mizo Chiefs Bars Fundamental Rights Claim Under Article 31: Supreme Court
14 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, RAKESH MOHAN PANDEY
Tularam @ Khamman Sai S/o Shri Dev Sai – Appellant
Versus
South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT :
RAKESH MOHAN PANDEY, J.
1. In the instant writ appeal, the appellant has challenged the order dated 12.12.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 22 of 2002, whereby the writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging therein legality and validity of the order of his dismissal from service dated 28.12.2001 (Annexure P/10), has been dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the present case are that the appellant was appointed as General Mazdoor/Casual Piece Rated Loader under the respondents on 10.05.1984 and in service records his name was entered as Tula Ram, S/o Dev Sai. He was promoted to the post of Clerk Grade III on 13.09.1985, and thereafter, as Clerk Grade II on 20.02.1987 (Annexure-P/1). On 09.10.1999, a notice was issued to the appellant to produce academic certificates and thereafter, on 13.12.2000, again he was directed to produce matriculation certificate. The appellant informed the management of South Eastern Coalfields Limited (for short, ‘SE
Mistakes in implementation of disciplinary proceedings do not invalidate findings against impersonation if the misconduct is substantiated. Delays in proceedings, while regrettable, do not excuse fra....
Disciplinary proceedings were upheld as valid; delay and procedural flaws were insufficient to overturn dismissal for misconduct.
The doctrine of proportionality cannot be invoked in cases where the employment is based on a forged document.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of specific and proven charges, adherence to procedural rules, and consideration of the petitioner's explanation in disciplinary proceedings.
The judgment emphasizes the limited scope of interference in departmental proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 and the importance of justifying the penalty imposed.
The principles of natural justice require that a person facing disciplinary action be given an opportunity to defend themselves, including the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and submit a repl....
The main legal point established in the given judgment is that the power of judicial review discharged by the High Court under Article 226 is distinct from the Appellate power exercised by a Departme....
The court established that disciplinary actions must be based on evidence, and the absence of such evidence can lead to judicial intervention.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
Listen Article