uncategorised

Cancellation of appointment due to absence of honorable acquittal from crime of violence, held, justified in this case. [State of Rajasthan v. Mohd. Saleem, (2021) 8 SCC 782]

In this case, prayer was made for expunction of adverse remarks made against appellant, a senior lawyer, by High Court while deciding four cases in which appellant was representing one of the contesting parties. The Court observed that while it is of fundamental importance in realm of administration of justice to allow Judges to discharge

Principles clarified re three broad sets of employers viz. (i) Employers in organised sector like industry; (ii) Employers in public sector undertakings including Boards and Corporations and other establishments which meet test of “State” within meaning of Art. 12 of the Constitution; and (iii) Central and State Governments proper as employers. As far as first

Determination of entitlement to appointment in case of offences involving moral turpitude, violent activities would depend on nature of offence charged with and result of same.  Mere acquittal not sufficient but rather entitlement would depend on whether it was clean acquittal based on total absence of evidence. If acquittal is recorded in a case involving

In this case, study leave granted to appellant Medical Officer posted in Government (NCT) of Delhi Hospital to pursue postgraduate course, revoked vide order dt. 22-1-2021 in terms of policy dt. 20-10-2020 and office order dt. 22-10- 2020 not to grant study leave to doctors working in government hospitals in view of COVID-19 Pandemic. The

(i) clean acquittal or acquittal by granting benefit of doubt; (ii) Grave offences involving moral Turpitude; and (iii) Non-disclosure of pending criminal cases. (Paras 15 to 17) Cancellation/Refusal of appointment for the Post of Police Constable on grounds of: Cancellation of candidature of respondent candidates (4 in number) by Screening Committee on ground that respondents were

In this case some articles in godown were found removed and placed near fencing when appellant “Rakshak” in Railway Protection Force was on special duty. The departmental Enquiry imposed a penalty of reduction of pay to the minimum of timescale of Rs 200 for a period of two years affecting his future increments. The appellate