Back
VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
Himanshu Dineshchandra Parekh – Appellant
Versus
Institute For Plasma Research – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenging removal from service (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioner’s right to fair inquiry (Para 4) |
| 3. respondent's defense against removal (Para 5) |
| 4. analysis of inquiry and evidence (Para 6 , 7) |
| 5. legal standards of misconduct and inquiry (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 6. finality of disciplinary authority's decision (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 15 , 16) |
JUDGMENT :
Vaibhavi D. Nanavati, J.
1. By way of present petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein has challenged the order dated 29.09.2015 passed by the Disciplinary Authority i.e. Acting Chief Administrative Officer, for Institute of Plasma Research (for short ‘the IPR’) as found confirmed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 21.12.2015 in IPR/ADMN/APPEAL/109796/12, passing the order of removal of the petitioner from his services from the post of Engineer SC and has prayed for the following reliefs:
B. YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ of mandamus or writ in any nature or direction, by quashing and setting aside the order dated 29/09/2015 passed by the Acting Chief Administrative Officer, i
Disciplinary proceedings must follow due process, including proper inquiry and adherence to principles of natural justice.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the authority's power to terminate services under Rule 15(ii) of the Anandalaya Education Society (Service conditions, discipline, conduct and appe....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a service dispute involving a private educational institution and its employee is not amenable to challenge under Article 226 of the Constitut....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioner, as an employee of a school with a public element in imparting education, was entitled to avail the remedy under Article 226 of....
The court affirmed that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not maintainable when an alternative statutory remedy exists, particularly in private employment disputes.
The Army Welfare Education Society is not a 'State' under Article 12, and the doctrine of legitimate expectation does not apply to private employment disputes.
Allegations against an employer must be substantiated; failure to do so can result in justified dismissal for misconduct.
A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable against a private unaided minority educational institution. A service dispute in the private realm involving a priva....
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.
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
