Recent Judgement

[Civil Appeal No. 1087 of 2015 arising out of SLP (C) No. 22784 of 2014] O R D E R V.GOPALA GOWDA, J. Leave granted. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and final order dated 24.07.2013 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in L.P.A. No.3 of 2013, whereby […]

[Civil Appeal No. 1094 of 2015 arising out of SLP (C) No.9059 of 2013] ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal has been preferred against judgment and order dated 19th October, 2012 passed by the High court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.52578 of 2004. 3. The question

Appointment – Enquiry officer – Charge sheet- Quashing of – Certificate of petitioner regarding Diploma course of Sanitary Inspector found to be bogus – Institute from where diploma had been obtained by the petitioner was neither a university or even deemed university and rather was a fake institution functioning in violation of the university Grants

Appointment – Category of treeorist affected persons – On the date when the case of petitioner was being considered for appoinment, certificate showing petitoner to 100% disabled – Subsequent reduction of his disability will not affect his right to get post – Respondent are directed to consider the case of petitioner for appointment in terms

Annual Confidential Report – Below benchmark grade – Non-communication of ACR – In the ACR for the year 2003-04 respondent had been graded ‘Good’ a grade which was below the prescribed benchmark of ‘Very Good’ – The said below benchmark ACR grading was communicated to be the respondent on May 12, 2010 in wake of

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