Natural Justice - The Legal Chamber

Judicial Service Reinstatement: Supreme Court Rules Against “Minor Irregularity” Discharge

7Jun

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Judicial Service Reinstatement: Supreme Court Rules Against “Minor Irregularity” Discharge

The Supreme Court overturned the discharge of a judicial probationer, holding that termination based on alleged misconduct (like simultaneous degrees or non-disclosure of past employment after resignation) without a proper inquiry and opportunity to be heard is stigmatic and punitive, violating principles of natural justice and Article 311 of the Constitution. The Court emphasized that minor omissions after resignation are not grounds for discharge, especially when the probationer completed training successfully Facts Of The Case: Pinky Meena, holding multiple degrees including LL.B. and LL.M., was a Grade-II Teacher in the Rajasthan Education Department from 2014. She applied for the Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate post following an advertisement on November 18, 2017. After selectio...

Supreme Court Quashes Bank’s Charge Sheet: Failure to Seek CVC Advice Ruled Illegal

The Supreme Court ruled that Regulation 19 of the Union Bank of India Officers’ (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976 mandates mandatory consultation with the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) before issuing a charge sheet in disciplinary cases involving a vigilance angle. The Bank’s failure to await the CVC’s first-stage advice rendered the proceedings arbitrary and illegal, warranting quashing of the charge sheet. The Court clarified that once the Bank acknowledges a vigilance angle and seeks CVC input, it cannot unilaterally proceed without considering the advice, upholding procedural fairness in disciplinary actions. No back wages were granted, but retiral benefits were ordered to be released. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, A.M. Kulshrestha, a Deputy General Manager at Unio...

Supreme Court Clarifies Limits of Section 482 CrPC Powers :High Courts Can’t Revive Quashed FIRs After Compromise

The Supreme Court ruled that High Courts cannot revive quashed FIRs under Section 482 CrPC after parties have reached a lawful compromise, emphasizing the absolute bar under Section 362 CrPC against reviewing judgments except for clerical errors. It clarified that inherent powers cannot override statutory prohibitions, allowing recall only in cases of jurisdictional errors or abuse of process. The judgment reaffirmed that violation of compromise terms must be addressed through civil remedies, not criminal proceedings. The Court directed all High Courts to adhere to this settled legal position. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a property dispute in Haryana, where an FIR (No. 432/2014) was registered under Sections 406 and 420 IPC against Raghunath Sharma and others for alleged ...