No Employee Should Be Retired With Pending Disciplinary Proceedings Unless Compelling Circumstances/Very Serious Charges: Allahabad High Court
1 day, 6 hours ago

No Employee Should Be Retired With Pending Disciplinary Proceedings Unless Compelling Circumstances/Very Serious Charges: Allahabad High Court

Live Law  

While granting interest on delayed payment of post-retiral dues to a Nagar Palika employee, the Allahabad High Court observed that unless there are compelling reasons or serious charges, an employee should not be retired with disciplinary proceedings pending against him. 10,000 on the Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Seohara, Bijnor for delaying the payment of retiral dues of the employee despite no conclusive charges against him, Justice J.J.Munir held “No employee should be allowed to retire, with disciplinary proceedings pending against him, unless these are commenced virtually on the eve of his retirement, for very compelling reasons, or the charges are so serious and facts so complicated that the process of inquiry would certainly extend beyond the employee's superannuation.” The Court took note of the affidavit of the Commissioner, wherein the delay in disbursing the post retiral benefits could be seen as 2 years. Observing that the inquiry against the employee on the verge of retirement ought to have been conducted swifty, the Court held that “It took the Executive Officer of the Nagar Palika and the Commissioner as well, the nudge of a writ of this Court to galvanize them into action, conclude the inquiry after the petitioner's retirement and based on findings, reach a decision on 21.09.2019, when the inquiry report was submitted that after all, the petitioner's post-retiral benefits had to be paid in full. 10,000 on the Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Seohara, Bijnor and directed payment of 6% simple interest on delayed payment of post retiral dues from 2019.

Retirement Disciplinary Proceedings Court Disciplinary Payment High Proceedings Employee Officer Dues Division Nagar His Retirement Executive Petitioner Retiral Delayed Payment Nagar Palika Retiral Dues Palika Parishad Palika Naib Moharir  officer  proceedings  nagar  employee  retired  pending  dues  payment  serious  executive  unless  disciplinary  petitioner  retirement  retiral  palika  court  high  compelling

History of this topic

'Petitioner's Voluntary Retirement Could Not Be Cancelled After Being Accepted By Respondents Once', Delhi High Court
4 weeks, 1 day ago

'Petitioner's Voluntary Retirement Could Not Be Cancelled After Being Accepted By Respondents Once', Delhi High Court

Live Law  

A Division Bench of Delhi High Court comprising Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur observed that the Petitioner's voluntary retirement could not have been cancelled after it was accepted in the first place. On the next date of hearing, the Counsel for the Respondents produced the Speaking Order dated 30.10.2024 issued by the DIG, CRPF by which the Petitioner's request …

Employee Erroneously Given Benefit Of Scheduled Tribe Quota Can't Be Terminated In Absence Of Any Misrepresentation On His Part: Allahabad HC
9 months, 2 weeks ago

Employee Erroneously Given Benefit Of Scheduled Tribe Quota Can't Be Terminated In Absence Of Any Misrepresentation On His Part: Allahabad HC

Live Law  

The Allahabad High Court has upheld the quashing of termination of an employee after he had an unblemished service record of 30 years. Placing reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in Chairman and Managing Director, Food Corporation of India and others vs. Jagdish Balaram Bahira and other, counsel for State argued that the termination of the petitioner was right …

Blatant Violation: Karnataka HC Directs Payment Of Benefits To Retd Govt Employee Who Was Denied Pension Without Inquiry, Imposes ₹1 Lakh Cost
9 months, 4 weeks ago

Blatant Violation: Karnataka HC Directs Payment Of Benefits To Retd Govt Employee Who Was Denied Pension Without Inquiry, Imposes ₹1 Lakh Cost

Live Law  

The Karnataka High Court has come to the aid of a former employee of Hubli Electricity Supply Company Limited on whom the company imposed a huge recovery of Rs 86,52,163 and even 11 years after superannuation, denied him a pension and other terminal benefits. It is not paid on account of recoveries against the petitioner all of which have been …

Unless Specifically Provided In Statue, Employer Cannot Initiate/Continue Disciplinary Proceedings Against Retired Employee: Allahabad High Court
11 months, 1 week ago

Unless Specifically Provided In Statue, Employer Cannot Initiate/Continue Disciplinary Proceedings Against Retired Employee: Allahabad High Court

Live Law  

The Allahabad High Court has held that unless it has been specifically vested with the jurisdiction under a statue, a disciplinary authority of the employer cannot initiate or continue pending disciplinary proceedings against an employee after his superannuation. The Supreme Court had held that no disciplinary proceedings could continue against the retired employee as there was no jurisdiction vested in …

Employee Cannot Be Terminated Without Full Departmental Inquiry: Gujarat High Court
2 years, 10 months ago

Employee Cannot Be Terminated Without Full Departmental Inquiry: Gujarat High Court

Live Law  

Gujarat High Court Bench comprising Justice Biren Vaishnav while allowing the Petition challenging the order terminating the Petitioner's services has observed as follows; "The employer is not allowed to hire and fire even if the employee, maybe ad hoc or probationer, and the services cannot be given a go-bye by one stroke of pen on the ground of misconduct by …

Kerala HC Dismisses Challenge Against Compulsory Retirement Of Judicial Officer [Read Judgment]
4 years, 10 months ago

Kerala HC Dismisses Challenge Against Compulsory Retirement Of Judicial Officer [Read Judgment]

Live Law  

The High Court of Kerala observed that there is no scope of interference in disciplinary action against officer in judicial service if there is sufficient evidence for showing unsatisfactory conduct. In the instant case the petitioner, one Mr. V. Jayakumar, former Judicial First Class Magistrate, Pathanamthitta, was compulsorily retired under Rule 13A of the Kerala Judicial Service Rule 1991. The …

Retirement Does Not Protect Employee From Action For Misconduct During Service : Bombay HC [Read Judgment]
5 years, 6 months ago

Retirement Does Not Protect Employee From Action For Misconduct During Service : Bombay HC [Read Judgment]

Live Law  

The Bombay High Court on Friday held that retirement of an employee does not completely preclude the appointing authority from initiating action for dealing with the misconduct of the employee during currency of the service. Petitioner challenged the said condition of continuation of the disciplinary proceedings against her in a writ petition before the high Court. A division bench of …

Discover Related