Sunday, July 5, 2026
State can’t undo 33-year-old appointment: Gujarat High Court
Thursday, June 25, 2026
We need doctors in this country’: SC dismisses plea seeking cap on private medical college fees

EWS student allotted general MBBS seat, college demands ₹19L annual fee
Saturday, June 13, 2026
Dismissal from service should be reserved for grave misconduct: SC
The Supreme Court ruled that dismissal from service should be imposed only in cases of grave misconduct, stressing its severe impact on employees and their families.
The court set aside a woman's dismissal as disproportionate and directed authorities to consider a lesser penalty
BY PTI PUBLISHED DATE - 11 JUNE 2026, 08:52 PM
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday said a disciplinary authority must be very careful before imposing the severest form of punishment of dismissal from service as it has a devastating effect not only on the dismissed employee but also on their dependant family members.
The apex court said dismissal from service must remain reserved for cases where the misconduct is of the most serious nature where elements of synthetic consideration would be undesirable and inappropriate.
Powered By VidCrunch
The observations came from a bench of justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh which delivered its verdict on an appeal filed by a woman, who was employed with the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited and was dismissed from service.
“Dismissal is ordinarily justified where the misconduct is of such gravity that continuance of the employee would be wholly incompatible with discipline, trust or institutional functioning,” the bench said.
The top court said cases involving corruption, illegal gratification, moral turpitude, misappropriation, acts causing substantial loss to the employer or conduct showing complete unfitness for continued service stand on a different footing.
It observed where the misconduct does not involve corruption, moral turpitude, financial misappropriation or proved loss to the employer, and where there is long service without much blemish, the disciplinary authority must carefully examine whether any lesser punishment would meet the ends of justice.
Dealing with the case, it said, “With respect to the punishment of dismissal which we consider wholly disproportionate to the charges proved, the competent authority shall consider any punishment other than the ultimate penalty of dismissal from service, after considering the appellant’s long service, past record, age, nature of misconduct, absence or presence of financial loss, and other relevant circumstances”.
The apex court set aside the dismissal order of July 2017 as “wholly disproportionate”, while leaving the finding of misconduct undisturbed.
It noted that the appellant had joined the service in April 1985 and in September 2006, she was placed under suspension pending enquiry.
It further noted that the suspension order alleged acts of indiscipline, insubordination, disobedience of superior officers, tampering with official documents and negligence.
The bench said period of suspension continued for nearly 11 years and the authority passed the order in July 2017 dismissing her from service.
The top court was dealing with her appeal challenging an April 2024 verdict of the Bombay High Court’s Nagpur bench which had upheld the order of dismissal.
“Dismissal from service is the severest form of penalty which can be inflicted on a delinquent employee in service jurisprudence. It brings the relationship of employer and employee to an end permanently, and ordinarily deprives the employee of the incidents of past service, including retiral benefits,” the bench said.
It said dismissal from service does not lead merely to the loss of existing source of income for the employee but also for the dependent family members.
“Thus, it will have a devastating effect not only on the dismissed employee but also on all those who are dependant on the employee,” the bench said.
“Because of the severity of its impact not only on the employee but also to his dependents, the disciplinary authority must be very careful in seeking to impose the severest form of punishment of dismissal,” it said.
The bench said it was not minimizing the importance of discipline in an office establishment. It said in this case, the allegations substantially appear to arise out of internal office functioning and service-related conflict and did not play out in the public domain.
While partly allowing the appeal, the bench also held that imposition of the second punishment of treating the suspension undergone as punishment was not permissible.
Besides other directions, it said the competent authority shall decide the service and monetary consequences of the suspension period in accordance with the regulations, including payment of subsistence allowance in terms of the court’s observations.
The bench said the authority shall within four weeks from the date of receipt of its judgment issue a proper show-cause notice to the appellant as regards the penalty proposed to be imposed other than dismissal, having regard to the gravity of the misconduct.
It directed the authority to pass a reasoned order on penalty within eight weeks. The bench noted that since the appellant has already crossed the age of superannuation, no direction for reinstatement can be issued at this stage.
“The monetary and retiral consequences, if any, shall abide by the fresh order to be passed by the competent authority in terms of this judgment and the applicable regulations,” it said.
HC: RTI can’t be used for obtaining personal info
Thursday, June 4, 2026
Can bar overqualified person from job: SC
NEWS DIGEST
Wednesday, June 3, 2026
Dependent ‘married daughter’ entitled to compassionate employment: Court
Friday, May 22, 2026
'Nothing short of fraud': SC pulls up Indian Nursing Council rule allowing nursing colleges 30km away from ICU hospitals
Monday, May 18, 2026
MBBS students transferred after medical college derecognition cannot claim govt fee rates in private institutes: SC
Tuesday, May 12, 2026
SC: Won’t interfere in CBI probe against Senthil
Wednesday, May 6, 2026
Deemed varsity engg degrees without AICTE nod invalid: HC
Saturday, April 18, 2026
Poor academics no bar to jobs for high-rankers: HC
Poor academics no bar to jobs for
high-rankers: HC
18.04.2026
Cuttack : The Orissa high court observed that high ranking candidates in a recruitment exam cannot be disqualified on the basis of their poor academic records. The HC ruling came on Thursday while it was hearing a batch of 242 petitions challenging the Odisha Subordinate Staff Selection Commission’s (OSSSC) Oct 10, 2025 order, that denied candidates a place in the merit list for recruitment to the posts of livestock inspector, forester and forest guard, reports Lalmohan Patnaik . OSSSC had rejected the petitioners’ claim for appointment on grounds that they had adopted unfair means during the written exam. HC noted that the commission had not received report of illegality or irregularity in the conduct of the written exam from any of the 94 centres. Justice Biraja Prasanna Satapathy directed OSSSC to recommend the 242 petitioners for appointment within three weeks. The state govt was to ensure timely appointments.
Employees hired without advertisement or interview cannot be regularised:
Friday, April 17, 2026
Can't have different DA hikes for staff and pensioners: Supreme Court
Tuesday, April 14, 2026
Wife reneges on divorce by consent, SC invokes Art 142
Friday, April 10, 2026
Madras HC bins plea on transfer of govt staff after 3 years
Madras HC bins plea on transfer of govt staff after 3 years
Apr 10, 2026, 02.06 AM IST
Chennai: Madras high court on Thursday refused to order transfer of govt employees who have been working in the same place for more than three years. The court observed that while the Election Commission (ECI) is taking action by transferring govt servants, interference by the court is not required.
The first bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan observed this, while disposing of a plea moved by Integrated Manapparai Taluk Rainfed and Irrigated Farmers Association.
According to the petitioner, a govt order (GO) was issued in 1994 mandating the transfer of govt employees working in various departments once every three years to ensure transparency in administration and to prevent misuse of power by officials. It further alleged that govt officials working in departments such as agriculture, revenue and police have been continuing in the same postings for more than three years, and as a result, they have been selectively extending govt welfare schemes to preferred individuals.
The association also contended that govt officials must act impartially during elections, but allowing them to continue in the same post for long durations is against election conduct rules and creates a possibility of them acting in favour of the ruling party. Refusing to entertain the plea, the bench observed that transfer of govt employees is a service-related matter and such a relief cannot be sought in a PIL. The court, however, directed the ECI to consider the petitioner's representation in accordance with law.
Tuesday, April 7, 2026
Judge breaks nib of pen after signing Sathankulam verdict
State can’t undo 33-year-old appointment: Gujarat High Court
State can’t undo 33-year-old appointment: Gujarat High Court July 5, 2026, 01.02 AM IST Ahmedabad: 05.07.2026 The Gujarat HighCourt has quas...
-
Madras varsity panel against budget cuts Ragu.Raman@timesofindia.com 22.04.2025 Chennai : The state govt's move to cut the budget for t...
-
கணவன் முதல் நாள் இரவில் தான் கண்ட கனவைப் பற்றி மறுநாள் காலையில் தன் மனைவியிடம் விளக்கிக் கொண்டிருந்தார். “அடியேய்... நானும், நீயும் அமொர...