eng
competition

Text Practice Mode

High Court ki Taiyari

created Mar 10th 2023, 12:14 by 1998Raunak


0


Rating

399 words
0 completed
00:00
 It was further submitted by Shri Shroti, learned counsel for the petitioner that in the present case petitioner was appointed in the year 1986 and the action is now taken against him after a period of more than 17 years and there being inordinate and unexplained delay in initiating the action, the entire action of the respondents stands vitiated. Finally, it was submitted by Shri Shroti that even if the act of seeking compassionate appointment is accepted, the same does not amount to any misconduct for which disciplinary action could be taken. Shri Shroti submitted that holding charge no. 1 to be partially proved, is incorrect and the disciplinary authority has recorded a perverse finding, contrary to the evidence available on record, it is based on presumptions and assumptions and, therefore, cannot be sustained. Accordingly, on the aforesaid grounds and placing reliance on the following judgments, Shri Shroti seeks for interference into the matter. The judgments relied upon by Shri Shroti are Regional Manager, Bank of Baroda Vs. Presiding Officer, Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal and another, A. I. R. 1999, S. C. 912 to canvass the ground that there is no suppression of fact and Secretary, Department of Home Secretary, A. P. and others Vs. B. Chinnam Naidu, 2005 (2), SCC 746 again on the same ground. The judgment by a Bench of this Court in the case of Praful Kasekar Vs. Airport Authority of India and another, 2010 (1), M. P. L. J 95 also in support of the same ground with regard to suppression of fact. Shri Shroti further took me through two judgments relied upon by the disciplinary authority in the cases of Naresh Kumar Mali (supra) and Umrao Singh (supra) to contend that in the said judgments, the principle laid down is to the effect that after having obtained compassionate appointment once to a post, subsequent appointment on compassionate ground to another post simultaneously without relinquishing the earlier post is prohibited. It was argued by Shri Shroti that this judgment is only to the effect that having obtained compassionate appointment on one post, again appointment is prohibited. It was argued by Shri Shroti that the aforesaid two judgments have been wrongly interrupted and applied by the disciplinary authority, in the present case, after disagreeing with the finding of the enquiry officer and holding the petitioner guilty with regard to charge no. 1.  

 

saving score / loading statistics ...