Back
VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
Prajapati Kantilal Vitthaldas – Appellant
Versus
Director- R. C. Patel Madhyamik Shala – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Vaibhavi D. Nanavati, J.
1. By way of present petition the petitioner herein invokes the Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the CAV Judgment dated 28.11.2006 passed by the learned Gujarat Secondary Education Tribunal in Application No.388 of 1998 and 123 of 2003 on the ground that the impugned CAV judgment is without taking into consideration the record of the case, evidence adduced by the parties and without appreciating the grievance of the petitioner raised in the said application, praying for the following reliefs :-
B. be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari and/or a writ in the nature of certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ, order or directions, quashing and setting aside the CAV Judgment dated 28.11.2006 passed by the learned Gujarat Secondary Education Tribunal in application no. 388 of 1998 and 123 of 2003, the order of dismissal dated 08.10.2002 passed by the respondent-School Management Management and further be pleased to allow both the applications bearing no.388 of 1998 and 123 of 2003 with all the reliefs prayed therein;
C. be pleased to stay the execution, implementation and op
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.
Allegations against an employer must be substantiated; failure to do so can result in justified dismissal for misconduct.
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....
Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction by setting aside the dismissal order of the respondent No.1 in view of the charges, which were proved against him.
Unauthorized absence from duty without prior permission or timely communication justifies dismissal under applicable regulations.
The court upheld the Tribunal's decision to reduce the petitioner's punishment from removal to compulsory retirement, affirming the adherence to procedural rules in disciplinary proceedings.
The court upheld the dismissal of the petitioner, emphasizing adherence to natural justice and the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of considering the defence of the delinquent employee and recording reasons in decision-making processes, highlighting the obligation to adhere to principles of....
Disciplinary proceedings must follow due process, including proper inquiry and adherence to principles of natural justice.
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
