Back
VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
Kokilaben Karsandas Manvar – Appellant
Versus
Gujarat Krishi University – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Vaibhavi D. Nanavati, J.
1. Heard Ms. Prachi Upadhyay, the learned advocate appearing for Mr. Vaibhav A. Vyas, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioners, Mr. D. G. Chauhan, the learned advocate appearing for the respondents No.1 and 5.
2. The petitioners herein are by way of present petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have challenged the order dated 3.8.2005 passed by the Gujarat Secondary Education Tribunal, dismissing the Application No.174 of 1998 filed by the petitioner herein. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, as referred above, the petitioners are seeking for the following reliefs :-
[B] YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a Writ in the nature of Certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, order Or direction, by quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 3/8/2005 passed by the Hon'ble Tribunal in Application No.174/1998, at Annexure “A" to the petition, and the impugned order dated 19/4/1996 passed by the respondent No.1, at Annexure “B" to the petition.
[C] YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to direct the respondents to reinstate
Unauthorized absence from duty without prior permission or timely communication justifies dismissal under applicable regulations.
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.
A public servant's unauthorized absence can lead to dismissal, even if procedural irregularities exist in the disciplinary process, if the absence is deemed as abandonment of duty.
Termination of service without inquiry and prior approval violates statutory provisions and principles of natural justice.
The dismissal of an employee for unauthorized absence is justified when procedural requirements are met, despite claims of improper procedure by the employee.
Allegations against an employer must be substantiated; failure to do so can result in justified dismissal for misconduct.
Termination without proper procedure and documentation is disproportionate, violating legal norms on employee's rights.
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
