admin

Rule 25(1) – Dismissal from service – Conviction in criminal case and suspension of sentence during pending appeal – Conviction in the charge of coruption has to be viewed seriously and unless the conviction is annulled, an employer cannot be compelled to take an employee back in service – High court erred in its interpretation […]

Rule 16(3) – Compulsory retriement – Of the five preceding year, record would reveal that in the immediate preceding year the respondent was graded ‘Outstanding’, the three preceding years to the immediate preceding year had respondent No.1 being graded ‘ Very Good and the next preceding year ie. fifth going backward had the had the

ACR – Once the instructions prescribed a particular authority to be the assessing authority competent to record the performance of an officer then the authorities which are empowered to accpet such a report would necessarily have to give reasons in the event of thier having a difference which is in conflict with the perception of

ACP – Immediate assessing  authority rated the petitioner as ‘very good ‘ but the final accepting authority did not accept the report and performance of the petitioner was assessed as average – No reason assigned – Remarks inserted by the said authorities prejudicially condemning the performance of the petitioner are unsustainable in the eyes of

ACP scale – Petitioner on this turn was promoted as Senior Assistant on 19.12.1996 – He was reverted on 29.10.2003 at his own request as junior Assistant – Again promoted on his turn as Senior  Assistant on 20.7.2006 – Retired on 28.2.2009 after attaining the age of superannution – As per earlier Scheme petitioner did

[Civil Appeal No.9389 of 2014] SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J 1. The appellants have preferred this appeal against orders dated 19th November, 2013 and 5th March, 2014 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench at New Delhi in O.A. No.401 of 2013 and R.A No.11 of 2014 with M.A No.120 of 2014 in O.A. No.401