A Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court has dismissed a former Judicial Magistrate’s challenge to his 2016 dismissal from service, holding that accepting a mobile phone from a practising advocate and keeping in regular contact with her was serious misconduct, as was failing to report purchases of vehicles and a bank loan. The Bench held that the charge over his judicial orders being wrong could not have been laid, but found the other charges enough to justify dismissal for lack of integrity.
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has upheld the dismissal of a Grade-II Warden of the Central Prison, Madurai, holding that in the absence of a presenting officer the enquiry officer may put clarificatory questions to witnesses, and that the limited scope of judicial review did not warrant interference.
Upholding the finding of guilt against a welfare-office clerk in a scholarship-funds defalcation case but finding his compulsory retirement “exorbitant,” the Patna High Court set aside the penalty and remanded the matter, noting that he was a new incumbent who signed documents under pressure after the wrongs had already been committed by his predecessors. Patna: […]
The Patna High Court has dismissed a writ petition by a State Bank of India officer challenging his reduction in grade, imposed after a disciplinary inquiry found he had sanctioned clean overdrafts beyond his powers, exposing the bank to a loss of about Rs 49.74 lakh. The Court held that a bank officer is held to a higher standard of honesty, that acting beyond one’s authority is misconduct irrespective of any eventual loss or recovery, and that the penalty was proportionate and not open to interference in judicial review.
The Bombay High Court has quashed the compulsory retirement of a Tata Institute of Social Sciences professor, holding that the punishment was grossly disproportionate to the misconduct found, which centred on his starting a WhatsApp group without the Institute’s permission and without any personal gain being established. Applying the doctrine of proportionality, the Court held that a penalty out of proportion to the gravity of the misconduct violates Article 14, found the inquiry findings perverse, and reinstated the professor with 50% back wages.
The Allahabad High Court declined to examine the charges against a suspended in-charge headmaster at the writ stage, holding that his explanation must be raised as a defence in the departmental enquiry. The suspension order was kept in abeyance and the enquiry directed to be concluded within 15 days.
