Back
VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
Firozbhai Yakubbhai Shaikh – Appellant
Versus
Administrator – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. By way of present petition, the petitioner herein has challenged the dismissal order bearing Reference No.GM/52/PST/5518, dated 11.01.2011 issued by the respondent No.2.
2. Heard Mr. D.G. Shukla, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Aadit R. Sanjanwala, learned advocate appearing for the respondent Nos.2 and 4 and Mr. Darshan M. Parikh, learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.3.
3. It is the case of the petitioner herein that the petitioner was initially temporarily appointed as an Apprentice Junior Clerk with effect from 10.06.1994 for a period of six months by the respondent No.2, later on confirmed on 06.03.1995 by the Board on the post of Junior Clerk at Surat Branch. The said orders are duly produced at Annexure – A colly.
3.1 The petitioner was promoted to the post of Junior Officer by the Board on 29.07.2003. The petitioner was assigned additional powers of Assistant Manager on 30.04.2005 initially, for a period of six months, which was further extended from time to time till 30.04.2009 by the respondent No.2. The said communications are duly produced at Annexure – B and Annexure – C colly.
3.2 Because of some under-statement of financial data
An employee's dismissal must be executed by the competent authority and follow due process, including adherence to principles of natural justice.
Dismissal of an employee at pleasure does not require notice or enquiry, affirming the authority of the Board under bye-laws.
The dismissal of the petitioner was upheld as legal and justified, with the court affirming the supervisory nature of its review under Article 227, emphasizing the lack of procedural errors in the Tr....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the disciplinary authority to follow the principles of natural justice, record tentative reasons for disagreement with the inqu....
Point of law: Schedule appended to a statute cannot in any way wipe out main provisions of the Rules in effect and spirit.
Point of law: Schedule appended to a statute cannot in any way wipe out main provisions of the Rules in effect and spirit
Order of Appointing Authority dismissing respondent from service after granting opportunity of hearing to respondent, cannot be interfered with.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power to remove the CEO is vested with the RBI as per Section 36AA of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949.
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
