RAJESH SHANKAR
Salkho Mahto – Appellant
Versus
Managing Director, Central Coalfields Limited – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of dismissal. (Para 1 , 2 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. petitioner seeks to quash dismissal due to fraud. (Para 3) |
| 3. court's observations on the enquiry process. (Para 4 , 10 , 11 , 13 , 18 , 27) |
| 4. arguments regarding procedural fairness and delay. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 12 , 20) |
| 5. legal principles on fraud in employment. (Para 14 , 17 , 25 , 28 , 30 , 31) |
| 6. pending inquiries must allow for fair opportunity. (Para 19) |
| 7. judicial standards in reviewing administrative decisions. (Para 22 , 24) |
| 8. final decision on writ petition dismissal. (Para 29 , 33) |
ORDER :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the office order bearing no. PO/CH/DISC. Action/2007-08/480-88 dated 26.04.2007 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent no. 3 – the Project Officer, Churi Project of CCL, Ranchi whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service of CCL with immediate effect. Further prayer has been made for quashing the show cause notice as contained in letter no. 4172-74 dated 10/11.01.2014 (Annexure-1 series to the writ petition) issued by the respondent no. 3, whereby explanation was sought from the petitioner as to why her r
B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India
Bank of India & Anr. Vs. Avinash D. Mandivikar & Ors.
Bank of India v. Degala Suryanarayana
Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board Vs. T.T. Murali Babu
Devendra Kumar Vs. State of Uttaranchal & Ors.
High Court of Bombay v. Shashikant S. Patil
M.V. Bijlani Vs. Union of India
P.V. Mahadevan Vs. Md. T.N. Housing Board
Pravin Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors.
Punjab National Bank & Ors. Vs. K.K. Verma
R. Vishwanatha Pillai Vs. State of Kerala & Ors.
State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur v. Nemi Chand Nalwaya
State of Karnataka & Anr. Vs. N. Gangaraj
Mistakes in implementation of disciplinary proceedings do not invalidate findings against impersonation if the misconduct is substantiated. Delays in proceedings, while regrettable, do not excuse fra....
The appointment being void ab initio precludes the petitioner from claiming reinstatement and other benefits.
The Disciplinary Authority can order further enquiry only if serious defects exist in the initial enquiry; it cannot do so after a finding of exoneration.
Disciplinary proceedings quashed for defective charge memo without imputations, documents, witnesses; no departmental evidence or witnesses; perfunctory enquiry report lacking independent reasons and....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.