Mere Unwanted Staring At A Woman's Chest In Office Does Not Constitute Voyeurism Under Section 354-C IPC: Bombay High Court State Cannot Justify Espionage FIR Based Solely On Custodial Disclosure Without Corroborative Evidence: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail Mere Issuance Of Letter Of Intent Without Formal Work Order Does Not Create Concluded Contract Or Arbitration Agreement: Supreme Court Executing Court Cannot Modify Terms Of Compromise Decree Merely Because Implementation Is Impracticable: Supreme Court Adjudicating Authority Only Needs To Check For 'Plausible' Pre-Existing Dispute Under Section 9 IBC, Not Its Success On Merits: Supreme Court Arguing Against Settled Law To Show Skill Wastes Court Time; Giving Up Such Arguments A Professional Virtue: Supreme Court Limitation Under Section 468 CrPC Is Computed From Date Of Filing Complaint, Not Date Of Cognizance: Supreme Court MSCS Act | Co-operative Society Can't Acquire Corporate Debtor Under IBC If Not In 'Same Line Of Business' As Per Its Bye-Laws: Supreme Court Multi-State Co-op Societies Can Only Invest In Entities With Substantially Similar Core Business Under Bye-Laws: Supreme Court High Court Cannot Usurp Governor's Statutory Discretion To Grant Extraordinary Pension Under 1981 Rules: Supreme Court Litigants Can Challenge Non-Appealable Interlocutory Orders In Final Appeal Under Section 105 CPC: Supreme Court Plaintiff Cannot File Fresh Suit For Title If Relief Was Omitted In Earlier Injunction Suit Arising From Same Dispute: Supreme Court Plaintiff's Failure To Enter Witness Box Draws Rebuttable Presumption, Not Fatal To Suit If Rebutted By Cogent Evidence: Supreme Court Sale Deeds Executed During Pendency Of Specific Performance Suit Hit By Doctrine Of Lis Pendens: Supreme Court EWS Certificates Must Relate To Correct Financial Year; Courts Should Not Routinely Interfere In Online Recruitment Rejections: Supreme Court Court Can Lift 'Veil Of Partnership' To Evict Tenants Using Reconstitution As Cloak For Unlawful Sub-Letting: Supreme Court State Cannot Fix Lower Dearness Relief Rate For Pensioners Than Dearness Allowance For Serving Employees: Supreme Court Prolonged Separation Indicates Matrimonial Bond Broken Beyond Repair: Supreme Court Upholds Divorce Over Wife's Cruelty Right To Contest Elections Distinct From Right To Vote, Co-Operative Societies Can Set Threshold Eligibility Conditions: Supreme Court Court Can Draw Adverse Inference Against Party Withholding Best Evidence, Has No Duty To Seek Production: Supreme Court Limitation | Delay Condonation Cannot Be An Act Of Generosity: Supreme Court Refuses To Condone 31-Year Delay To Challenge Decree Sentence Suspension In Murder Cases Only Under Exceptional Circumstances; Presumption Of Innocence Erased Upon Conviction: Supreme Court

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