Back
Rashmikant Remeshchandra Upadhyay – Appellant
Versus
Khedbrahma Kelavani Mandal – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(1.) Heard learned advocate Mr.K.B.Pujara for the petitioner, learned advocate Mr.Harmish K. Shah for the respondent No.1 and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.K.M.Antani for the respondent Nos.3 and 4 through video conference.
(2.) By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :
(b) To quash and set aside the impugned order of punishment of removal from service dated 31-12-2003 passed by the respondent school as per Annexure-Z/3;
(c) To quash and set aside the impugned order of approval dated 24-12-2003 passed by the respondent no.3 as per Annexure-Z/2;
(d) To direct reinstatement of the petitioner in service with all the consequential benefits as if the impugned orders were never passed;
(e) PENDING THE HEARING AND FINAL DISPOSAL OF THIS PETITION, BE PLEASED to stay the further operation of the impugned orders dated 24-12-2003 as per Annexure- Z/2 and the impugned order dated 31-12-2003 as per Annexu
The court affirmed that the disciplinary authority's decision, supported by a fair inquiry process, is not subject to re-evaluation by the court unless it is shockingly disproportionate.
Termination of service without inquiry and prior approval violates statutory provisions and principles of natural justice.
The main legal point established is the requirement for fair and just enquiry proceedings in cases of termination, ensuring the principles of natural justice are upheld.
Point of Law - In view of the above provisions of the Act, 1972 it emerges that due to fault of the management of the School the petitioner cannot be penalized by not granting the protection under Se....
The Court emphasized that it does not act as an appellate authority to re-appreciate the evidence and that the disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. The Court also highlighted that the s....
Unauthorized absence from duty without prior permission or timely communication justifies dismissal under applicable regulations.
Allegations against an employer must be substantiated; failure to do so can result in justified dismissal for misconduct.
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
