MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Termination of the Services Without Holding Disciplinary Enquiry is Unjustified and Dehors the Requirements of Law: Supreme Court Reinstates Registrar of GB Pant Institute

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Supreme Court of India, in a recent ruling, underscored the principle of natural justice and the requirement for holding a proper disciplinary enquiry before terminating an employee, particularly in cases involving government or public sector entities. This judgement is particularly significant as it highlights the sanctity of procedural integrity in employment-related disputes.

The case revolved around Mr. Sandeep Kumar, who was terminated from his position as the Registrar of the GB Pant Institute of Engineering and Technology. His termination was contested on grounds of procedural irregularities, lack of disciplinary enquiry, and non-disclosure of crucial documents that allegedly demonstrated the legitimacy of his appointment. The appeal was directed against two judgements of the Uttarakhand High Court which had dismissed Kumar’s writ petition and subsequent review petition challenging his termination.

Suppression of Material Facts: The High Court had dismissed the writ petition on the basis of non-disclosure of the minutes from a crucial meeting which supported Kumar’s case, labeling it as suppression of material facts. The Supreme Court criticized this view, noting, “Non-placing of relevant documents on record, inadvertently, should not be a ground for dismissal when the minutes actually support the appellant’s case.”

Probation and Regularization: The appellant had been appointed on probation and had continued working beyond the probation period, which, according to his appointment letter, deemed his services to be regularized. The Court observed, “Termination without disciplinary enquiry or cause shown is deemed improper.”

Qualifications and Approval by the Board: Allegations concerning the appellant’s qualifications were addressed by a prior committee that confirmed the qualifications were genuine and satisfactory, contrary to the claims that led to his termination.

Decision: The Supreme Court ordered the reinstatement of Mr. Sandeep Kumar with all consequential benefits, stating that his termination was illegal and set aside both the impugned judgements of the High Court. Furthermore, the Court allowed the institute the liberty to initiate disciplinary proceedings, if deemed necessary, under proper legal norms.

Date of Decision: April 16, 2024.

Sandeep Kumar vs. GB Pant Institute of Engineering and Technology & Ors.

 

Latest Legal News