Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“Rendering the representations preferred by the aggrieved employees mute, by way of non-consideration by the State, is reflective of conduct unbecoming of government servants who are tasked with the noble responsibility to serve the citizens.”
Calcutta High Court stated that show-cause notices are analogous to a First Information Report (FIR) and are not required to detail the probative value of the Forensic Audit Report at this stage.
“In a society like ours, job more often than not, happens to be predominant source of livelihood and therefore snatching away a job, virtually amounts to taking away the means of livelihood of the employee.”
Madras High Court said that natural justice clearly requires that the additional evidence placed on record by both parties should be considered by the Opposition Board.
Calcutta High Court noted that discrepancies in service date and providing inadequate time for response to show-cause notice, indicates a breach of natural justice.
Yashoda Super Speciality Hospital & Heart Institute happens to be one of the leading hospitals in Ghaziabad.
by Tarun Jain†
Cite as: 2023 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 80
Administrative Law — Subordinate/Delegated Legislation — Judicial Review/Validity of Subordinate/Delegated Legislation — Specific Pleadings — Necessity: For striking down statutory provision or
Unless the self-assessed return, as submitted had been questioned, re-opened or re-assessed and the assertion of the petitioner of the services rendered by it qualifying as an “export of service” questioned or negatived in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Act, its claim for refund could not have been negated.
“Departmental proceedings pending criminal trial would not warrant an automatic stay unless, a complicated question of law is involved. Also, acquittal in a criminal case ipso facto would not be tantamount to closure or culmination of proceedings in favour of a delinquent employee”
It is for violation of Section 18(2) and Section 18(3) of the FERA that would entail action under Section 56 FERA, but the intervening threshold of issuance of show cause notice/opportunity notice and hearing the notice before passing the decision upon such mandatory application of principles of natural justice alone that the action under Section 56 could, at all, have been initiated.
Allahabad High Court has said that notice under Section 263 was prepared and uploaded on 28-03-2022 and the same was received on the fixed date and the impugned order dated 31-03-2022 has been passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice.
Delhi High Court observed that what ultimately turned decisive was a voluntary acknowledgment by the appellant-professor of his acts of indiscretion in getting attracted by the charms of a young female student.
When it comes to the curtailment of the liberty of a person, it becomes incumbent for the Court to follow the principles of natural justice by giving the opportunity of hearing to the accused
The Court observed that the recommendations made by an Expert Committee are not binding on the NGT, they are only by way of assistance to enable the NGT to arrive at a correct decision in the matter.
Administrative Law — Natural Justice — Generally — Nature, Scope and Applicability: Meaning and Constituents of principles of natural justice in general,
“Acausal nexus must be established between the breach of Natural Justice and the award made. An inquiry should be made as to whether the breach was merely technical and inconsequential or whether it has resulted in denial of benefit to the Tribunal to decide on crucial evidences.”
NCLAT set aside the NCLT’s order and remitted back the matter to NCLT to examine the same after hearing both the parties.
The Supreme Court held that the critical views of the Media One News Channel on Government policies cannot be termed ‘anti-establishment’ as the use of such a terminology in itself, represents an expectation that the press must support the establishment.
Observing that the sealed cover procedure violates both principles of natural justice and open justice, the Supreme Court has held that the public interest immunity proceeding is a less restrictive means to deal with non-disclosure on the grounds of public interest and confidentiality.