2nd compendium of JO

1SN.-1 Appointed as Constable in CRPF on the basis ofaltered/tempered Education certificate.

A. Case No.B. CourtC. PartiesD.Dt. of J.O.

Gist of the case/Judgment.

A. Appeal(civil) 3044of 2003

B. SupremeCourt ofIndia

C. Ram Saranvs I.G. OfPolice, CRPFAnd Ors

D. 02.02.2006

The appellant applied for appointment as a Constable in Central ReservePolice Force (in short `CRPF') and appeared for recruitment test on 1.5.1951.In support of his claim of age he produced a certificate where his date of birthwas stated to be 1.1.1951. But in reality as was revealed later, his date ofbirth was 1.7.1951. Therefore, he was not eligible to be appointed as he wasless than 18 years of age. He undisputedly rendered about 27 years of service.But on the basis of certain allegations he faced departmental inquiry and wasimposed penalty of reduction to the rank of NK (GD) for a period of one yearfrom 10.9.1997 to 9.9.1998 without cumulative effect. However on suomotoreview his penalty was enhanced to that of dismissed from service.The WP filed before the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court,Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, was dismissed.Petitioner moved to Honble Supreme Court by way of filing Appeal (Civil)3044 of 2003.

The Honble Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and held that-

This is a case which does not deserve any leniency otherwise itwould be giving premium to a person who admittedly committedforgery. In the instruction (G.O. No.29/93), it has been providedthat whenever it is found that a government servant who wasnot qualified or eligible in terms of the recruitment rules etc. forinitial recruitment in service or had furnished false informationor produced a false certificate in order to secure appointmentshould not be retained in service. After inquiry as provided inRule 14 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 if the charges are proved,the government servant should be removed or dismissed fromservice and under no circumstances any other penalty should beimposed.

2SN.-2 Appointed as Head Constable in CRPF on the basis ofaltered/tempered Education certificate.



A. WP NO.1543/1999

B. Delhi HighCourt

C. Bansi Ramvs UOI &Ors.

D. 05.12.2011

The petitioner, a Head Constable at the Central ReservePolice Force (CRPF), has challenged the order of dismissaldated 2nd May, 1997 passed by the Inspector General,CRPF, on the charge that he had submitted a false certificateof his date of birth and he had changed his date of birth as hewas not eligible for the post of Constable at the time of hisenlistment, and the order dated 16th January, 1998 passed bythe Director General dismissing the appeal of the petitioneragainst the enhancement of punishment imposed on him.

The WP filed before the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court has beendismissed.The Honble Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and held that-

This is a case which does not deserve any leniencyotherwise it would be giving premium to a person whoadmittedly committed forgery. In the instruction (G.O. No.29/93), it has been provided that whenever it is found that agovernment servant who was not qualified or eligible interms of the recruitment rules etc. for initial recruitment inservice or had furnished false information or produced afalse certificate in order to secure appointment should not beretained in service. After inquiry as provided in Rule 14 ofthe CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 if the charges are proved, thegovernment servant should be removed or dismissed fromservice and under no circumstances any other penalty shouldbe imposed.

3SN.-3 Compassionate Appointment.A. Case No.B. CourtC. PartiesD.Dt. of J.O.


A. CWJC No.9293/2012

B. Patna HighCourt

C. TribhuwamKumarYadav VsUOI & Ors

D. 14.05.2012

The Honble Court dismissed the writ and held that-

It is not in dispute, that so far the petitioner is concerned hisdate of birth is 03.04.1993 and when application dated12.4.2002 was filed on his behalf he was only about 9 years ofage and he was not fit for appointment on compassionateground and much thereafter he has attended majority in the year2011. Hence after so much delay there is no occasion forconsidering the claim of the petitioner for compassionateappointment. Such appointment is meant for the immediaterelief to the family which has lost its bread earner. So far themother of petitioner is concerned her clam had been finallyrejected by the authority concerned vide order dt. 24.01.11 and01.10.11 but the said lady has not approached this Court and inthe aforesaid facts and circumstances the petitioner cannot belegally deemed to be entitled to raise any objection on her behalfwhen she is alive. If she does not want to challenge the saidorder of the authority the petitioner cannot be allowed to raisesuch objection on her behalf.In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this writ petition hasnot merit and it is accordingly dismissed.

4SN.-4 Absconding from duties.A. Case No.B. CourtC. PartiesD.Dt. of J.O.


A. WP (S) No.2605/2006

B. Ranchi HighCourt

C. Ex-SI/ExeCyril ToppoVs UOI &ors

D. 24.09.2012

The petitioner was dealt U/R-36 for AWL for 60 days.

He was awarded the penalty of Removal from Service.


It is absolutely improbable that the petitioner could not find anytime to inform the authorities for extension/grant of leave eitherby Post or by Telegram. Not only this, the impugned ordersuggests that the petitioner was declared absconder from dutiesand the police personnels were sent to his residence to find outand to produce him before the superior officer (s). However, onvisiting the residence, the petitioner was found missing from hisresidence as well. If the petitioner's mother was ill, as suggestedby learned counsel for the petitioner, in normal course, he wouldhave remained present in his residence, but he was foundmissing when the police personnel went to his residence forproducing him before the superior officer. Therefore, in hisdefence/ story set up by petitioner, on the face of it, seems to bean after-thought.However, the facts of the present case are totally different. Noneshould be permitted to remain absent from the dutiesunauthorisedly for a long time in a disciplined Force, that too,without valid and justified reasons.For the reasons discussed hereinabove, petitioner was guilty toremain absent for no valid or reasonable reason. This actionamounts to gross indiscipline, therefore, I do not find that thepunishment awarded to the petitioner is on the higher side in adisciplined Force. I do not find any justification to interfere withthe removal order passed by the disciplinary authorities.Consequently, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

5SN.-5 Misconduct, disobedience and dereliction of duty.A. Case No.B. CourtC. PartiesD.Dt. of J.O.


A. CWJCNo.4138/2000

B. Ranchi HighCourt

C. Ex-Ct.B.N.SharmaVs UOI andothers

D. 26.07.2012

The Petitioner was awarded the penalty of Removal from service onthe ground that during his duty hrs at Shop and CPL CISF Unit HECRanch some miscreants try to steal three gunny bags of brass chipsapproximate cost of Rs.19,88due to his carelessness and he has notappeared in orderly room when asked to do so.


I am fully satisfied that not only the petitioner was negligent buthis action amounts to gross indiscipline. A constable ofdisciplined Force like CISF should not dare to say that I will notreport to the superior officer of the Force on time since I amfeeling sleepy. If such type of plea is accepted, then there willbe no discipline in the disciplined Force. In view of the grossindiscipline on the part of the petitioner, I am satisfied that hisremoval from service is justified. Therefore, no interference iscalled for.

6SN.-06 Quarrelling with colleagues, misbehave with seniorsand creating nuisance in public place



A. WritAppealNo.238/2012

B. GauhatiHighCourt

C. RajendraPrasadMeena VsUOI & Ors

D. 27.08.2012

The petitioner was awarded the penalty of Removal from service forthe charges of Quarrelling with colleagues, creating nuisance in publicplace and habitual offender.

The Petitioner filed WP in Gauhati High Court.

The Learned Single Judge, vide order dated 31.12.2002 decline tointerfere with the order of removal from service for the provedmisconduct.

Against the above order petitioner filed Special Appeal before theDivision Bench of Gauhati High Court.

The Honble Gauahati High Court held that-

The penalty imposed on the petitioner cannot be said to bedisproportionate to the gravity of the charge attributed to thepetitioner, more particularly when the petitioner during his servicecareer of 10 years was imposed with as many 7 penalties indicated inthe Article of Charge.IV.

7SN.-7 TO SEEK SEX AT A WORK PLACE IS A FAIRLY SERIOUS OFFENCE AND FORWHICH THE PENALTY OF DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE DOES NOT SHOCKJUDICIAL CONSCIENCE.



A. WPNo.5298/2002

B. Delhi HighCourt

C. Ex-Ct.A.S.KumarVs UOI andothers

D. 01.08.2012

Constable A.S.Kumar while on B shift duty at the residence of ED(Works) RSP Rourkela misbehaved with a lady worker of the residenceof ED (Works) which was treated as amounts to misconduct andindiscipline and the Constable was dealt departmentally and awardedthe penalty of Reduction of pay from Rs.960/- to his initial pay ofRs.855/- for a period of one year without cumulative effectOn suo moto review by the DIG RSP Rourkela it was considered thatthe punishment awarded to the petitioner was not commensuratewith the gravity of misconduct hence after issue of Show CauseNotice the Punishment was enhanced to that of Dismissal fromService.

Revision petition submitted by the petitioner was consideredand rejected by the IG ES Patna. Aggrieved with the above penalty thepetitioner filed WP in the Honble High Court of Delhi. The Honble Delhi High Court dismissed the writ but withoutthere being any order as to costs with the following remarks: To seek sex at a work place is a fairly serious offence and for whichthe penalty of dismissal from service does not shock our judicialconscience. We may highlight that unsolicited sex by Force personneland that too from helpless poor ladies has turned out to be resultingin explosive situations, going out of control on numerous occasions.

8SN.-08 Adultery with a labourer/ assaulting and manhandling with labourer.



A. WritAppealNo.939/2012

B. KeralaHighCourt

C. MokalSanthoseMahadevVs UOI &Ors

D. 05.06.2012

The petitioner while posted at CISF Unit CIAL Cochin was awardedwith the penalty of Dismissal from Service for two counts. Firstcharge was commission of adultery with a labourer and another chargewas assaulting and manhandling with labourer and her husband.

The WP was dismissed by the Learned Single Judge.

The Petitioner filed WP before Division Bench of Kerala High Court.The Honble Kerla High Court dismiss the writ stating that thepetitioner is guilty of moral turpitude as such dismissal from service isappropriate.

The Honble Court held that

the admission of the appellant during the preliminary enquiry wasenough to establish his conduct being a CISF Constable. Theappellant being a CISF Constable, a member of para military force,ought to have behaved in a disciplined manner and the misconductfrom his part would reflect his moral turpitude. In that view of thematter, the question of any leniency to him would not arise. Theproved charges deserve noting less than dismissal from service. Wedo not find any good ground to interfere with the opinion of thelearned single judge and accordingly the appeal is dismissed.

9SN.09 The Possession of excess money than the prescribed during duty hours treated violation of the instructions amounted to misconduct.



A. WritAppealNo.584 of2012

B. A.P.HighCourt

C. IG (SWS)CISF RCFLMumbaiand twoothers. VsSubhashChandraBiswal

D. 07.08.2012

As per Office order dated 5.3.2002, the men on duty should carry onlyRs.10./- whereas the petitioner Assistant Sub-Inspector in CISF hadviolated the said order and was found possessing Rs.20/- while on dutywhen a team led by the Inspector carried out the check.

After conducting due enquiry he was awarded the penalty of Reduction tothe lower rank of Head Constable until he is found to be fit after threeyears from the date of the order.

On appeal the penalty was modified to that of reduction in the pay to theminimum stage in the rank of A.S.I. for the period of two years. It was alsodirected that during the period of reduction the petitioner would not earnthe increments of pay and on expiry of the said period the reduction wouldhave the effect of postponing his future increments of pay.

In WP filed in A.P. High Court the learned Single Judge observed that therewas no direct complaint against the petitioner regarding acceptance ofillegal gratification, the appellate authority failed to reach the logicalconclusion and that the observation made by the appellate authority itselfevidenced that the petitioner had not committed any misconduct. TheHonble learned Single Judge allowed the writ and quashed to orders of theDisciplinary, appellate and reviewing authorities vide order dated19.09.2011 in WP NO. 12022 of 2005.

Against the above order a Writ appeal was filed before the Honble DivisionBench of A.P. High Court. The Honble A.P.High Court allowed the writappeal and dismiss the WP. The Honble A.P. High Court highlighted that-

The concurrent finding recorded by the disciplinary as well as the appellateauthority that the petitioner had acted contrary to the office order and thushe was guilty of misconduct cannot be held to be a finding which wasvitiated by perversity or for want of evidence. Even assuming that the OfficeOrder, dated 5.3.2002 has no statutory force, since all the members of theForce are bound to comply with the same, the violation, in our consideredopinion, undoubtedly amounts to misconduct.

10

SN.-10 . Demand for the expired passport/travel documents from a pax at Airport is a serious offence.



A. WPNo.5490/2000

B. GujratHighCourt

C. SatishKumarVs DirectorGeneral &others

D. 22.08.2012

The petitioner was working as immigration clearing Officer at the IGIAirport, New Delhi. During duty at IGI Airport, New Delhi he keptone pax Shri Sukhdev standing for about 12 minutes and cleared in thelast for want of old passport without any valid reason in violation ofFRRO Circular dated 22.12.1993 wherein it has been clearly laiddown that-

No Clearing Officer in future will ask for the expired passport/traveldocuments from a pax in order to confirm his departure/arrival at thetime of embarking/disembarking unless and until he has a reasonableand strong suspicion of forgery of the passport/travel documentsproduced before him by the pax for getting an immigration clearance.

The Petitioner was awarded the penalty of reduction of pay by onestage for a period of one year. Against the above penalty the petitionerfiled Special Civil Application before the High Court of Gujrat atAhmedabad.

The Court find the conclusion reached by the Enquiry Officer is justand proper and dismiss the petition with an opinion that the respondentauthority has taken lenient view by imposing penalty of reduction ofone increment without future effect. Therefore, no interference iscalled for.

The Court made it clear that-

Normally the High Court and the Apex Court would notinterfere with the findings of fact recorded at the domesticenquiry but if the finding of guilt is based on no evidence,it would be a perverse finding and would be amenable tojudicial scrutiny. Therefore, it is very clear that scope ofArticle 226 of the Constitution of India is very limited.

11

SN.-11 A PERSON CANNOT CLAIM PROMOTION FROM THE DATE OFOCCURRENCE OF VACANCY AND NO RETROSPECTIVE EFFECTCAN BE GIVEN TO ORDER OF APPOINTMENT.



A. WP NO.8545/2011

B. Delhi HighCourt

C. SHRI A.N.BARDAIYAR &ORS.VsUOI &others

D. 07.12.2011

The five petitioners joined the Government of India in the CentralSecretariat Services as Assistant and rose to become Section Officer,then Under Secretary and reached the grade of Dy. Secretary in whichrank they retired on superannuation in the year 2005 & 2006.respectively.The next post for promotion in the cadre to which the petitionersbelonged, was of Director. The petitioners were eligible for the saidpromotion since the year 2000-2001 when a list containing their nameswas also prepared. However the DPC was held only on 27th July, 2006and in which they were considered but not promoted, havingretired.They filed OA before CAT (PB) with the contention that they wereeligible for promotion since the year 2000-2001 and were notpromoted for the reason of the DPC having not been held, they arerequired to be promoted notionally to the said post of Director andeven though not claiming any emoluments of the said post, are entitledto their retiral benefits including pension as relatable to the post ofDirector.The Tribunal held that there is no rule that promotion should begiven from the date of creation of the promotional post or from thedate of vacancy.The WP filed in Delhi High Court against the above Judgement orderhas been dismissed relied upon the Apex Court order in K. Madhavanv. UOI 1987 SC 2291 wherein the Apex Court held that if the meetingof the DPC scheduled to be held is arbitrarily or mala fide cancelledwithout any reasonable justification therefor and to the prejudice ofan employee who is not considered for promotion to a higher post,the government in a suitable case can do justice by granting himpromotion to the higher post for which the DPC was to be held, withretrospective effect, however if the non holding of DPC is notarbitrary, the employee concerned can have no grievance and thegovernment will not be justified in appointing the employee to thehigher post with retrospective effect.

13

SN.-12 Pro-rata pension against resignation.



A. WPNo.10428/2008

B. MaduraiBench ofMadrasHighCourt

C. S.Abubecker,Ex-Naik VsUOI andothers

D. 14.09.2011

The petitioner was appointed as Security Guard in CISF. He headresigned from service after putting in service or 12 years and 7months in CISF. Since he was not entitled to pension, as resignationresulted in forfeiture of service under Rule 26 of the CCS (Pension)Rules, he was not granted pension.

The Petitioner filed WP in Madras High Court with a prayer to directthe respondents, to pay the arrears of pay, and pension from thedate of resignation/retirement till the date of filing of the WP, andsanction the pension for the future.

The Honble Madurai Bench of Madras High Court relied upon thedecision of Apex Court in the case of UOI Vs BRAJ NANDAN SINGH92005) (B) S.C.C. 325) wherein Apex Court made it clear that Rule-26sub-rules (1) and (2) has deals with amount of pension and not withentitlement dismiss the writ being no merit

14

SN.-13 In the writ jurisdiction court can not sit on the decision of the DPC likeappellate authority but can examine the proceedings of DPC in limited perspective.



A. WPNo.3098/1992WAN.48/07

B. M.P. HighCourt atJabalpur

C. A.K.PandeyVs UOI andothers

D. 21.08.2012

The Petitioner had filed WP for promotion to the rank ofInspector/Exe.The WP filed in PM High Court at Jabalpur was dismissed vide J.O. dt.28.10.2005.Writ appeal filed against the above J.O. has been dismissed by theHonble High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The Honble High Court made it clear that-

In the writ jurisdiction court can not sit on the decision of the DPClike appellate authority but can examine the proceedings of DPC inlimited perspective.

15

SN.-14 In writ jurisdiction, the High Court has limited scope of interferencein the administrative action of State in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdictionunder Article 226 of the Constitution of India.



A. WPNo.4732/2012

B. Delhi HighCourt

C. SurenderSinghVs UOI andothers

D. 28.09.2012

On 09-12-2005 at about 2230 hours at the unit lines duringthe dinner Petitioner scuffled with Constable Puran Chandunder the influence of liquor.

The above said act of Constable Surender Singh is arepresentation of gross indecency and indiscipline which isextremely unbecoming for member of a disciplined forceand lacklusture the image of the force.

After duly conducted enquiry he was imposed a penalty ofreduction of pay by 3 stages from Rs.4050-3795 for a periodof two years. Appeal and Revision petition were alsoconsidered and rejected.

Aggrieved with the above Petitioner filed WP in Delhi HighCourt.

The Honble Delhi High Court relied upon the decision ofApex Court in (1995) 6 SCC 749, B.C.Chaturvedi vs.Union of India & Ors., dismiss the WP with the followingremarks:

We agree with the observation made in the order dated 8thJune, 2007 that the evidence on record proves that thepetitioner was under excessive influence of liquor and fledaway to his quarter on the context of vomiting from thespot to avoid his medical examination.

The Honble Court also highlighted that The writ Courtcannot re-assess the evidence produced by the parties.

16

SN.-15 General allegations do not make out any case of malafideagainst the Commandant.



A. SpecialAppealNO. 1012of 2005

B. AllahabadHighCourt

C. SatyaPrakashUpadhyayVs UOI &Ors

D. 28.09.2011

On 04 charges of allegations, the services of the petitioner wasterminated. Appeal and revision petition was considered andrejected and WP filed in Allahabd High Court was dismissed by theLearned single. Judge vide order dt. 20.07.2005.Against the above order the petitioner filed Writ Appeal before theHonble Division Bench of Allahabad High Court with a mainsubmission that the Commandant was biased against him.The Honble Court dismiss the writ and find that

The counsel for the appellant could not point out any allegation ofbias against the witnesses who were examined in the enquiry oragainst who conducted the enquiry. Even against the Commandant,only general allegations are alleged in paragraph 6 of the writpetition. These allegations are of general nature and are not specificat all. They do not made any case of malafide against theCommandant.

17

SN.-16 Belated approach by filing Writ petition against variouspunishment awarded during service is not entertainable .



A. WP No.11904/12

B. CalcuttaHighCourt

C. TapanKumarGhosh VsUOI & Ors

D. 14.09.2012

The petitioner filed WP against various punishment awarded to himsince 2006 onwards as recorded in Service book.

The Honble Court dismiss the writ and find that

the WP is clearly not entertainable. The petitioner has clubbed theproceedings in connection of various charges against him ondifferent occasions and for difference acts committed by him,. Allthese matters plainly cannot be clubbed together and challenged inthe WP. The WP suffers from misjoinder of cause of action. There isno cogent explanation for his inordinate delay except that thepetitioner has mentioned the mental condition and his inability tounderstand the orders passed by the appropriate authority. This ishardly any explanation, which justifies such belated approach tocourt.

18

SN.-17 Delay and laches in filing writA. Case No.B. CourtC. PartiesD.Dt. of J.O.


A. WP(S) No.2047/2008

B. Ranchi HighCourt

C. HC/GD JaiKumarSingh VsUOI andothers

D. 14.06.2012

The Petitioner was awarded minor penalty in the year 2001.

He filed writ in the year 2008 after 07 years of penalty.


There is no explanation for the delay and laches on the part ofthe petitioner for moving this Court after 7 years. Therefore it willnot be proper to revive issues which have attained finality byvirtue of the impugned order in the year 2001 itself on account ofthe laches of the petitioner himself. Accordingly, I am notinclined to entertain this application. It is dismissed.

19

SN.-18 The original application (OA) which is barred by limitation cannot be Interfered by High Court.



A. WP9136/2006

B. Delhi HighCourt

C. Devi SinghVsCommissioner ofPolice andOrs.

D. 05.10..2012

The Petitioner filed writ petition against the order dated 31.10.2005passed in OA No. 2347/2005 and M.A No. 2066/2005 by the CentralAdministrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi. The petitionerhad filed the said original application accompanied by the applicationfor condonation of delay. The condonation of delay application has notbeen accepted and as a result the original application filed by thepetitioner has been dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground oflimitation.The Honble Delhi High Court dismiss the writ and clarified that It is absolutely clear that going by the provisions of Section 21 of theAdministrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the original application filed bythe petitioner in October, 2005 was clearly beyond time. In fact, thepetitioner ought to have approached the Court within a year of thepassing of order dated 11.12.1996 by the appellate authority.However, the petitioner chose to file a representation before the Lt.Governor which also came to be rejected on 18.10.2001. As pointedout above, even if we take the date of 01.08.2003 as the date on whichthe petitioner was supplied a copy of the order dated 18.10.2001, thereis no tangible reason as to why the petitioner could not have filed theoriginal application within a period of one year from that date.Consequently, the finding of the Tribunal that the original applicationwas barred by limitation cannot be interfered with. The writpetition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

20

SN.-19 Territorial Jurisdiction.



A. SpecialAppealNo.2025/11

B. AllahabadHighCourt

C. RameshRam Vs UOI& Ors

D. 30.07.2012

The petitioner while posted to CISF Unit CCIL Tughlakabad, New Delhiwas awarded the penalty of Reduction in pay by one stage for 03years by the Gp. Comdt. Gp HQrs, New Delhi. However in suo motoreview the same penalty was enhanced to that Compulsoryretirement with full pensionary benefits by the DIG/NZ New Delhi.Appal was rejected by the IG/NS New Delhi.

The Petitioner filed WP in Allahabad High Court.

The Learned Single Judge, vide order dated 03.09.2011 dismiss thewrit as not maintainable before Allahabad High Court on the groundthat no part of cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdictionof Allahbad High Court.

Against the above order petitioner filed Special Appeal before theDivision Bench of Allahabad High Court.

The Honble Division Bench of Allahabad High Court relied uponvarious Apex Courts order dismiss the Special Appeal highlightingthat-

In the present case as noted above, the order rejecting theappeal was passed by the Inspector General, Central IndustrialSecurity Force at New Delhi and merely because it wascommunicated to the appellant at Ghazipur where he wasincidentally residing after his compulsory retirement, which lieswithin the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, will not conferjurisdiction to entertain the petition.

21

INDEXSN SUBJECT Page

No.

1. Appointment on the basis of altered/tempered Educational certificate.

01 &02

2. Compassionate Appointment. 03

3. Absconding from duties. 04

4. Misconduct, disobedience anddereliction of duty.

05

5. Quarrelling with colleagues,misbehave with seniors and creatingnuisance at public place

06

6. To seek sex at a work place is aserious offence.

07

7. Adultery with a labourer/ assaultingand manhandling with labourerreflects moral turpitude anddeserved nothing less thandismissal.

08

8. Possession of excess money than theprescribed during duty hours inviolation of the instructionsamounts to misconduct.

09

9. Demand for the unnecessary documentagainst prescribed rules from a paxat Airport is a serious offence.

10

10. A person cannot claim promotion fromthe date of occurrence of vacancyand no retrospective effect can begiven to order of appointment.

11

11. Pro-rata pension on resignation. 12

12. In the writ jurisdiction court cannot sit on the decision of the DPC

13

22

like appellate authority but canexamine the proceedings of DPC inlimited perspective.

13. In writ jurisdiction, the High Courthas limited scope of interference inthe administrative action of Statein exercise of extra ordinaryjurisdiction under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India.

14

14. General allegations do not make outany case of malafide against theCommandant.

15

15. Belated approach by filing Writpetition against various punishmentawarded during service is notentertainable .

16

16. Delay and laches in filing writ 17

17. The original application (OA)which is barred by limitationcannot be interfered by HighCourt.

18

18. Territorial jurisdiction 19

2nd compendium of JO

Documents

Transcript of 2nd compendium of JO