TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court overturns High Court, mandates response to misconduct notice for Forester position; appeal allowed.</h1> <h3>Divisional Forests Officer and others Versus M. Ramalinga Reddy</h3> Divisional Forests Officer and others Versus M. Ramalinga Reddy - 2007 AIR 2226, 2007 (4) SCR 1068, 2007 (9) SCC 286, 2007 (5) JT 353, 2007 (5) SCALE 494 Issues Involved:1. Legality of the respondent's inclusion in the list of candidates for the Forester position.2. Validity and jurisdiction of the show cause notice issued to the respondent.3. High Court's decision to allow the respondent to continue in service and receive benefits.4. Maintainability of the original application against the show cause notice.Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of the Respondent's Inclusion in the List of Candidates for the Forester Position:The judgment outlines that five vacancies for Foresters were notified to the District Employment Exchange, Nellore, on 22.11.1978. Initially, candidates registered up to 11.02.1970 were considered, and a list of 18 candidates, including the respondent, was sent to the employer on 9.01.1979. However, the respondent had registered only in 1976, and his inclusion was allegedly due to connivance with a Junior Assistant at the Employment Exchange. The District Employment Officer reported the respondent's misconduct, leading to a proposal to delete his name from the list.2. Validity and Jurisdiction of the Show Cause Notice Issued to the Respondent:The respondent's selection was questioned due to the alleged fraud, and a show cause notice was issued. The Supreme Court noted that the issuance of the show cause notice was within jurisdiction and not illegal. The purpose was to provide the respondent an opportunity to explain why his services should not be terminated. The Court emphasized that a selected candidate does not have an automatic legal right to appointment.3. High Court's Decision to Allow the Respondent to Continue in Service and Receive Benefits:The High Court had set aside the Tribunal's order and the District Employment Officer's report, directing that the respondent be continued in service with back pay and benefits. The Supreme Court found this approach incorrect, stating that the High Court did not pose the right question and that the observations regarding pay scale were irrelevant. The Court cited precedents to assert that the High Court should not have interfered with the show cause notice at that stage.4. Maintainability of the Original Application Against the Show Cause Notice:The Supreme Court highlighted that ordinarily, an original application against a show cause notice is not maintainable. The Court referenced previous judgments to support this view, stating that the respondent should have responded to the show cause notice and allowed the appropriate authority to make a decision. The Court also noted that the respondent's appointment was pursuant to an interim order, which should not have been granted by the High Court.Conclusion:The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, allowing the respondent to file a show cause within two weeks, after which the appellants could take an appropriate decision in accordance with law. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.
TaxTMI 