Back
N. SATHISH KUMAR
A. Stanely – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Police, Avadi Commissionerate, Chennai – Respondent
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records in connection with the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in Rc.No.L.1/(2)/445/10609(A)/2016 in WZO.No.397/2016, dated 15.06.2016, and the impugned rejection order passed the 1st respondent in Rc.No.PR.I/286/12475/APC/2022, dated 29.10.2022, and quash the same and to further direct the respondents herein to treat the out of employment period from 23.01.1999 to 16.11.2014 as duty for all purposes except back wages as per the Fundamental Rule 54-A(3).)
1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the 2nd respondent, dated 15.06.2016, and the rejection order passed the 1st respondent, dated 29.10.2022 and to direct the respondents herein to treat the out of employment period from 23.01.1999 to 16.11.2014 as duty for all purposes except back wages as per the Fundamental Rule 54-A(3).
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he joined the service as Grade-II Police Constable on 25.10.1984 and was promoted as Grade-I Police Constable and Head Constable in the year 2021. In the year 1999, he was implic
The main legal point established in the judgment is that once the punishment of removal from service is set aside by the Court of Law, Rule 54-A(3) of the Fundamental Rules has to be invoked to treat....
The discretion conferred by Fundamental Rule 54 in regulating the period of absence as duty with full salary is apparent and explicit, and the claim of an employee to treat the period as duty with fu....
Petitioner without assigning any reasons and same amounts to clear discrimination and same is in clear violation of Article 14 of Constitution of India.
Fundamental Rule 54-A(3) clearly stipulates that if the dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement of a Government servant is set aside by the Court on merits of the case.
Employment and service matter - Wages - No substantial difference between Rule 54 and Rule 54-A of Fundamental Rules, except that in one case, reinstatement is in consequence of an order made in depa....
A public servant acquitted of criminal charges is entitled to have their representation for regularisation of the period of absence from service considered by the employer in accordance with applicab....
Even though there is no express requirement in Fundamental Rule 54[3] for giving an opportunity to employee before passing an order, giving of such an opportunity is implicit in the exercise of power....
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
