Back
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
RAVI NATH TILHARI, J
P.RAM CHANDRA REDDY – Appellant
Versus
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ANANTAPUR – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petitions challenging disciplinary actions require adherence to procedural fairness. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. details of misconduct and allegations need clear substantiation along with fair hearing. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 10 , 12) |
| 3. clarification of 'misconduct' relevance to welfare standards necessitates clear and precise charges. (Para 18 , 28 , 40) |
| 4. effect of legal acquittal on subsequent disciplinary processes must be contextually evaluated. (Para 42 , 44) |
Heard Sri V. Padmanabha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K. Arjun, learned counsel representing Sri N. Srihari, learned Standing Counsel for Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (in short “APSRTC”) for Respondent No.2.
2. The writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following reliefs:-
“….issue an appropriate Writ Order or Direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari and quash the Award passed by the 1st respondent in I.D. No. 131 of 2011 dated 10.07.2013 published on 31.08.2013 upholding the order of removal passed by the 2nd respondent and granting no relief to the petitioner as illegal, unjust, contrary to law and pe
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
