-
Supreme Court Of India
State Bank of India v. K. S. Vishwanath
Hon'ble Judge(s):
M. R. Shah,
B. V. Nagarathna
D.O.D : 20/05/2022
Appeal Allowed
(A) State Bank of India Act (23 of 1955) , S.50— State Bank of India General Regulations (1955) , Regn.55— Dismissal from service - On proved charge of misconduct - Validity - Delinquent officer allegedly prepared set of fraudulent cash remittance documents and part with Rs. 10 Lacs as cash remittance to sbranch and thereafter failed to account same in books of branch - Said charge held to be proved by Enquiry Officer on appreciation of entire evidence on record including deposition of management witnesses - Management proving complicity of delinquent in said offence - Criminal mind of accused by introducing other person as new cashier and ensure that voucher was not signed by him established - Dismissal, proper.
(B) Constitution of India , Art.226, Art.227— State Bank of India Act (23 of 1955) , S.50— State Bank of India General Regulations (1955) , Regn.55— Dismissal from service - Interference - Delinquent dismissed from service on proved charge of misconduct by disciplinary authority - High Court re-appreciating entire evidence on record and thereafter interfering with findings of fact recorded by Enquiry Officer and accepted by disciplinary authority - Order of High Court suffers from patent illegality.
...Read Judgment(C) State Bank of India Act (23 of 1955) , S.50— State Bank of India General Regulations (1955) , Regn.55— Dismissal from service - Challenge as to - Delinquent officer dismissed from service on proved charge of misconduct - Plea that he is acquitted in criminal case - Standard of proof required in criminal case and that of disciplinary proceedings is different - Fact that criminal court acquitted delinquent by giving him benefit of doubt would not in any way render completed disciplinary proceedings invalid nor affect validity of finding of guilt or consequential punishment.
Constitution of India , Art.311— (Para9)
-
Supreme Court Of India
KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED v. EMTA COAL LIMITED Hon'ble Judge(s):
N. V. Ramana,
Krishna Murari,
Hima Kohli
D.O.D : 20/05/2022
Appeal Dismissed
...Read JudgmentConstitution of India , Art.14, Art.226, Art.136— Tender - For supply of coal - Deduction of washing charges - On basis of CAG report indicating quantification of coal rejects - Initially employer raised objections to quantification of coal rejects but, when audit objections were rejected by CAG, employer demanded reimbursement from suppliers based on same CAG report - Such change of stand not explained by employer - Clauses contained in agreements nowhere indicated that such deductions could be made for washing charges - Quality of coal supplied by suppliers never objected by employer - Order directing employer to not initiate recovery on basis of CAG report, proper.
-
Supreme Court Of India
MOHAMMAD AZAM KHAN v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Hon'ble Judge(s):
L. Nageswara Rao,
B. R. Gavai,
A. S. Bopanna
D.O.D : 19/05/2022
Petition Partly Allowed
...Read JudgmentCriminal P.C. (2 of 1974) , S.439— Constitution of India , Art.142— Interim bail - Grant of- Petitioner accused seeking interim bail in case registered under S.420 and 120B of Penal Code- Petitioner already been released on bail in respect of 87 criminal cases/FIRs, which were subject matter of Writ Petition- - Allegations in FIR that forged certificates are issued by unauthorized person - Charge-sheet filed after 1 year and 7 months of lodging FIR - Considering nature of allegations and delay in implication of petitioner in FIR - Interim bail, granted.
-
Supreme Court Of India
Rashtreeya Sikshana Samithi Trust v. Committee For Fixation of Fee Structure of Private Professional Colleges Hon'ble Judge(s):
L. Nageswara Rao,
B. R. Gavai
D.O.D : 19/05/2022
Order Accordingly
...Read JudgmentConstitution of India , Art.226— Admission to private medical colleges - Levy of exorbitant capitation fees - Prohibition - States enacted legislations prohibiting practice of charging capitation fee, by making it offence - Despite that, capitation fee is still being charged by private colleges - College management strictly prohibited from accepting payment of fees in cash, to avoid charging capitation fees - Web-portal to be set-up, wherein students can furnish information about colleges charging capitation fees - Fee Fixation Committees directed to take into account all components, leaving no scope for College Managements to charge any additional amounts.
States has enacted legislations prohibiting practice of charging capitation fee, by making it an offence. Despite these arrangements, capitation fee is still being charged by private colleges for admissions. Court issued directions to curb capitation fee menace that includes -
(a)A web-portal under the aegis of Supreme Court has to be set-up wherein any information about the private medical colleges charging capitation fees can be furnished by the students. The web-portal has to be maintained and regulated by the National Informatics Centre (NIC) under the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology;
(b) The Chief Secretaries of the States and Union Territories are directed to publish the details about the web-portal in the English as well as vernacular newspapers at the time of admission. In addition, a pamphlet should be compulsorily given to the students and their parents at the time of counselling informing them about the availability of the web-portal;
(c)While fixing the schedule for the admission process, the National Medical Commission and the Dental Council of India have to make sure that the counselling for all the rounds, including the stray vacancy round, is completed at least two weeks before the last date of admission;
(d) The names of students who are recommended by the authority for admission in the stray round vacancy have to be made public along with rank allotted to them in the NEET exam. The admissions should be made strictly on the basis of merit and in the event of any admission to the contrary, suitable action shall be taken against the private medical colleges;
(e) While fixing fee, the Fee Fixation Committees of the States should take into account all the components of fee, leaving no scope for managements to charge any additional amounts apart from what has been prescribed by the fee fixation committee from time to time. In the event that the management intends to charge additional amounts over and above the price band fixed by the Fee Fixation Committee, or for any component not included in the structure fixed by the Fee Fixation Committee, the same can only be done with the concurrence of the Fee Fixation Committee;
(f) The management of private medical colleges are strictly prohibited from accepting payment of fees in cash, in order to avoid charging of capitation fee. The students or any other aggrieved persons are at liberty to report on the web-portal regarding collection of fees in cash by any medical colleges.
(g) The Director General of Health Services and other concerned authorities to the State Governments should ensure that the All-India Quota and State Quota rounds of counselling are completed strictly in accordance with the time schedule that is fixed.
-
Supreme Court Of India
EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION v. M/s. KEY DEE COLD STORAGE PVT. LTD. Hon'ble Judge(s):
K. M. Joseph,
Hrishikesh Roy
D.O.D : 19/05/2022
Appeal Allowed
...Read JudgmentEmployees State Insurance Act (34 of 1948) , S.1(3)— Applicability - Notification under S.1(3) expanding coverage of Act to areas- Interpretation- Notification issued by Central Government specifying applicability of ESI Act to areas under Silchar Municipal Corporation and also mentioning certain areas/villages including village where respondent's establishment is located - Word "including" in Notification is used as a word of enlargement so as to make territorial application of ESI Act extensive - Notification is certainly not confined to "only area under Silchar Municipal Board", but includes various areas mentioned therein, in addition to areas under Silchar Municipal Board - Order of High Court that respondent's establishment falls outside municipal limits of Silchar and therefore, not covered under notification, erroneous and set aside
Interpretation of statute- Principles of interpretation of subordinate legislation - Are applicable for interpretation of statutory notification under S.1(3) of ESI Act(Paras293031)
Prev
Prev Next