Article 141 - The Legal Chamber

The Supreme Court ruled that while it is desirable to inform an employee if past misconduct will be considered for punishment, it is not mandatory when the current charge itself constitutes a "gravest act of misconduct." In such cases, referring to past conduct merely to add weight to the decision does not vitiate the dismissal order, especially within a disciplined force where habitual absenteeism is a serious violation. Facts Of The Case: The respondent, Ex. Constable Satpal Singh, was appointed in the Punjab Armed Forces in 1989 and later transferred to the Commando Battalion. The immediate trigger for the case was his unauthorized absence from April 4, 1994, to May 12, 1994 (37 days), after he overstayed a one-day casual leave. A departmental enquiry was initiated for this absence, w...

The Supreme Court ruled that similarly situated landowners must receive equal compensation in land acquisition cases. It held that a prior judicial decision awarding a higher multiplier for identical orange trees constituted a "special circumstance," justifying the restoration of a 15x multiplier over a reduced 10x multiplier to prevent discriminatory treatment. Facts Of The Case: The case involved the appellants, landowners from village Khanapur in Akola district, whose land was acquired by the Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation pursuant to a notification issued under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in August 1995. Possession was taken in April 1996. Dissatisfied with the compensation, the landowners sought a reference to a civil court. In its 2011 award, the reference court gra...

Tag: Article 141

No Relief for Constable: Supreme Court Reinstates Dismissal Over Unauthorized Absences

Supreme Court Slams Differential Pay, Upholds Fair Value for Fruit Trees on Acquired Land