Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CJ, MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS, J
CHAIRPERSON BOARD OF GOVERNORS – Appellant
Versus
DR PUSHPENDRA SINGH DHAKA S/O SHRI RAJ SINGH DHAKA – Respondent
Order :
1. Heard on applications (Nos.2/2024 and 1/2024) for withdrawal as well as transposition respectively.
2. While the appellant seeks to withdraw the appeal, respondent No.3 has moved an application for being transposed as appellant mainly on the submission that while deciding the writ petition, the learned Single Judge has made disparaging remarks and strictures against the conduct of the respondent No.3, therefore, as long as those strictures remain on record, it will have deleterious effect. Learned counsel submits that in fact, there had been delay in release of gratuity and on petition filed before another High Court, the employer referred to these strictures and remarks.
3. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 makes statement at the Bar that disciplinary enquiry has also been opened.
4. Learned counsel for the writ-petitioner-respondent No.1 opposes and submits that order passed by the learned Single Judge does not result in any legal injury to respondent No.3 because he was only the Chairman of the Selection Committee and not the Institution. He would argue that only the Institution could have challenged the order and not the Chairman of the Committee. Institution having d
An individual against whom disparaging remarks are made in a judicial order has the right to seek their expungement, regardless of the case's outcome.
Reputation of an employee, as perceived by his fellow employees in the service, is an important aspect of his dignity, which as a fundamental right traceable to Article 21 of the Constitution, has to....
The court's decision emphasized the legal grounds for interference under Clause 15 of Letters Patent and the consideration of material evidence in reaching its decision.
Quashing transfer order does not automatically invalidate disciplinary action for unauthorised absence; employee must join despite challenge absent stay – absence period regularized as qualifying ser....
A disciplinary authority's penalties must be proportionate to the misconduct, and vague charges cannot sustain disciplinary action.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for similarity in charges and proportionality in punishment, as well as the applicability of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in c....
The Appellate Authority must consider the merits of disciplinary proceedings and the stigma of dismissal, rather than merely conducting a judicial review.
Disciplinary authorities must provide reasons for penalties and consider employee representations; failure to do so violates natural justice principles.
The transfer was not punitive, and the transfer policy did not confer a legally enforceable right.
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
