Topic
The Allahabad High Court ruled that a personal altercation unrelated to official duties cannot be classified as misconduct under RBI regulations, thereby upholding the employee’s dismissal. It also ordered the bank to pay pending salary arrears and retiral benefits. This clarifies the scope of disciplinary liability for RBI staff.
Bombay High Court rules that domestic enquiry findings cannot be termed perverse merely because evidence is minimal, as long as some credible evidence supports the conclusion. The court also held that bringing police to the workplace to question a transfer and filing complaints to unrelated authorities constitutes misconduct justifying disciplinary action.
The Bombay High Court upheld the dismissal of an employee who used derogatory language toward Koli women, the very community his role was meant to serve. This ruling establishes that abuse directed at protected beneficiaries is not merely offensive conduct but a fundamental breach of trust warranting termination, setting a critical precedent for workplace dignity in public-service roles.
Karnataka High Court reaffirms that workman status under the Industrial Disputes Act hinges on the nature of duties performed, not salary or job title. While reinstating an employee terminated for three days of unauthorized absence, the Court awarded only 60% back wages, emphasizing proportionality and procedural fairness in disciplinary actions.
The Madras High Court has ruled that a bank officer’s violation of Self Help Group lending norms, even without evidence of personal enrichment, amounts to misconduct under service regulations. This sets a critical precedent for disciplinary proceedings in public sector banks, reinforcing that procedural integrity and adherence to lending guidelines are non-negotiable duties, not optional best practices.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that removing a public servant for a single operational mistake, absent proof of gross negligence or violation of conduct rules, violates the doctrine of proportionality under Article 14. This sets a critical precedent for departmental inquiries across state services, ensuring punishment aligns with the gravity of the fault and protects long-serving employees from disproportionate penalties.
Bombay High Court holds that attempting to illegally transfer signing authority from Sarpanch to Up-Sarpanch amounts to misconduct under Section 39(1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959.