Conviction Under Section 409 IPC Postulates Strict Proof Of Entrustment; Suspicion However Grave Cannot Substitute Proof: Supreme Court Criminal Prosecution Emanating From Past Matrimonial Relationship Ought Not To Linger After Divorce: Supreme Court Negligence Of Previous Counsel Not A Ground To Reopen Concluded Pre-Charge Evidence Under Section 311 CrPC: Allahabad High Court Unregistered Agreement To Sell Cannot Protect Tenant's Possession Under Section 53A Transfer Of Property Act: Delhi High Court Certified Copies Of Registered Sale Deeds Admissible As Secondary Evidence Without Proving Loss Of Original: Gauhati High Court Counsel Representing Deceased Party Must Inform Court Of Death Under Order XXII Rule 10-A CPC: J&K High Court Son Staying In Father's House Out Of Love And Affection Is A Mere Licensee, Cannot Challenge Father's Title: Delhi High Court Conviction For Murder Cannot Stand Where Single Blow Inflicted In Sudden Fight Without Premeditation: Uttarakhand High Court Inability To Trace Suppliers Or Buyers No Ground For Custodial Interrogation Once Recovery Is Effected: Punjab & Haryana High Court Right To Assemble Peacefully To Celebrate Association Anniversary Is A Fundamental Right; Unlawful Assembly Per Se Not An Offence: Madras High Court Marriage Photographs Can Be Relied Upon To Estimate Quantity Of Gold Ornaments In Matrimonial Disputes: Kerala High Court POCSO Act Not Confined To Securing Convictions, Soul Of Law Lies In Preserving Childhood Dignity & Healing: Madras High Court Special Appeal Maintainable If Single Judge's Order Relates To Authority Acting Without Statutory Appellate Jurisdiction: Allahabad High Court Recall Of Witness For Cross-Examination Permissible On Newly Framed Issue Post-Remand Even If Disposal Timeline Is Fixed: Karnataka High Court Litigant Cannot Overcome Law Of Limitation By Shifting Blame On Counsel Through Inconsistent Stands: Madras High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Preventive Detention Not Warranted If Person Can Be Dealt With Under Ordinary Laws; No Effort To Arrest In Pending Cases: Supreme Court Accused Languishing In Jail For 9 Years Deserves Bail; Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Violated: Supreme Court Custodial Death | Pendency Of Criminal Trial No Bar For Awarding Compensation Under Public Law Remedy: Gauhati High Court Suit For Possession Under Section 6 Specific Relief Act Barred If Filed Beyond Six Months Of Dispossession: Madras High Court Subsequent Purchaser Is Representative Of Judgment Debtor, Separate Suit Challenging Execution Sale Barred Under Section 47 CPC: Kerala High Court Statutory Bail Restrictions Melt Down When Pre-Trial Detention Is Prolonged & Trial Is Unlikely To Conclude Soon: Delhi High Court Failure To Apprise Accused Of Right Under Section 50 NDPS Act Vitiates Search & Recovery: J&K & Ladakh High Court Section 12(5) Arbitration Act Inapplicable To Proceedings Commenced Before 2015 Amendment; Executing Court Can't Apply Neutrality Norms Retrospectively: Punjab & Haryana High Court Banks Can Share Sale Proceeds Of Secured Assets Outside Liquidation Estate With Homebuyers Under Compromise Agreement: Kerala High Court Election Disputes Must Be Resolved Expeditiously; Long Stays Render Adjudication A Mockery Of Justice: Madras High Court Delhi High Court Suspends LOC, Permits Businessman To Travel Abroad For Healthcare Conferences; Cites Roots In Society & Past Compliance Section 138 NI Act Complaint Not Maintainable By Third Party Who Is Neither Payee Nor Holder In Due Course: Allahabad High Court

Unsatisfactory and Not Conducive’ Working Not Ground for Stigmatic Termination: Delhi High Court Sets Aside Termination of Warder

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Delhi High Court, on February 28, 2024, has set aside the termination order of a warder, Mr. Virender, employed by the Government of NCT of Delhi. The Court ruled that the grounds of “unsatisfactory and not conducive” working, as stated in the termination order, cannot justify a stigmatic termination without adherence to principles of natural justice.

The respondent, Mr. Virender, appointed as a warder and on probation, faced termination following an FIR lodged under the NDPS Act. The termination order, dated April 24, 2017, cited his services as “unsatisfactory and not conducive to the job requirements.” Challenging the order, Virender approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which ruled in his favor, leading to the current petition by the Government of NCT of Delhi.

The crux of the matter revolved around whether the termination order, citing unsatisfactory performance without a formal inquiry, amounted to a stigmatic and punitive action against the warder.

The Court, led by Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, observed that termination for “unsatisfactory and not conducive” performance is not envisaged under Rule 5 of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, and therefore, cannot form the basis for a punitive action without a formal inquiry. Justice Rao noted, “Mere pendency of an FIR shall not preclude the employer from initiating disciplinary proceedings… the same needs to be proved on the principles of preponderance of probability.”

The High Court directed the reinstatement of Mr. Virender with all consequential benefits, in line with the relevant rules. However, it granted liberty to the petitioners to initiate disciplinary action in accordance with conduct rules, independent of the outcome of the ongoing FIR.

Date of Decision: February 28, 2024

Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors. Vs. Virender

Latest Legal News