Saheb Lal vs Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

DELHI HIGH COURT
SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
Saheb Lal – Appellant
Versus
Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited – Respondent

Table of Content
1. facts regarding the petitioner's employment and conviction. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. arguments presented by the petitioner. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
3. the court's observation on the procedures followed. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
4. court's insights on discrimination and the legality of the removal. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 30)
5. justification for the removal order. (Para 28 , 29 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34)
6. final conclusion of the court. (Para 35)

JUDGMENT

Satish Chandra Sharma, C.J.

1. The present petition is arising out of order dated 27.07.2012, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A No. 1439/2011, dismissing the Original Application preferred by the Petitioner.

2. The facts of the case reveal that the Petitioner was initially an employee of the Department of Telecommunication and later on, on establishment of Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (MTNL), a company incorporated under the Companies Act, he became the employee of MTNL.

3. The Petitioner was absorbed in the services of MTNL. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), in the year 1987, registered a case against the Petitioner and two

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

DELHI HIGH COURTSATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, SUBRAMONIUM PRASADSaheb Lal – AppellantVersusMahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited – Respondent

DELHI HIGH COURT
SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
Saheb Lal – Appellant
Versus
Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited – Respondent