#dismissal from service

Karnataka High Court upholds dismissal of a BMTC driver for 5-month unauthorized absence, ruling that absence without leave constitutes misconduct warranting disciplinary action regardless of prior leave application. The judgment reinforces employer discretion in service law while mandating case-specific evaluation of post-reinstatement conduct.

The Calcutta High Court upheld the dismissal of a BSF personnel for accepting bribes to falsify medical certificates, ruling that grave corruption in recruitment undermines national security and justifies immediate removal even before criminal conviction. This sets a critical standard for disciplinary action in paramilitary forces where public trust and institutional credibility are at stake.

Madhya Pradesh High Court rules that dismissal from service cannot be justified solely on a one-day unauthorized absence or pending criminal allegations without proof of violation of police regulations. The judgment reinforces the principle of proportionality in disciplinary actions, protecting employees from arbitrary termination.

Bombay High Court rules that dismissal in a domestic enquiry can stand on the preponderance of probabilities, even if procedural irregularities exist. The court upheld the dismissal where the workman admitted to possessing an unauthorized item, reinforcing that substantive evidence outweighs technical flaws in disciplinary proceedings.

The Rajasthan High Court ruled that assaulting a superior officer resulting in documented medical harm warrants dismissal under the Navy Act, irrespective of provocation or parity with lesser disciplinary cases. The judgment underscores absolute discipline as non-negotiable in armed forces, setting a precedent for zero-tolerance toward insubordination.

Bombay High Court upholds dismissal of an employee for misappropriating company funds by advancing loans at 48% interest and depositing Rs. 43,837 in personal accounts, far exceeding his salary. The court rules that such gross misconduct bars reinstatement under the Industrial Disputes Act, mandating only monetary compensation where superannuation applies.

Central Administrative Tribunal sets aside dismissal of a Group A officer, ruling that violations of CCS (CCA) Rules and principles of natural justice render disciplinary action void. The Tribunal directed reinstatement with full retiral benefits, reinforcing that procedural fairness is non-negotiable in service law.

The Supreme Court ruled that dismissal under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution requires concrete, recorded material-not mere suspicion-to bypass departmental inquiry. The judgment underscores that subjective beliefs of witness intimidation or evidence tampering must be objectively substantiated, failing which the dismissal order violates principles of natural justice and is liable to be quashed.

Punjab & Haryana High Court holds that dismissal under Rule 16.2(1) of Punjab Police Rules requires explicit finding of gravest misconduct; mere inference insufficient.

Bombay High Court upholds that dismissal from service is disproportionate for isolated misbehavior, reinforcing proportionality in disciplinary proceedings under service law.