Dispose of the complaint within six months–– The original complaint was filed in the year 2013, we direct the Board to dispose of the complaint within six months from today. We also grant liberty to the complainant, if so required, to make an application before the Board for an appropriate interim order after completion of the pleadings and in which case, the Board may dispose of the application within three months. .....Gail (India) Ltd =VS= Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board, [1 LM (SC) 625] ....View Full Judgment

Natural Justice¬:–– Disciplinary enquiry-Natural justice-Non application of mind–– The writ court will certainly interfere with disciplinary enquiry or the resultant orders passed by the competent authority on that basis if the enquiry itself was vitiated on account of violation of principles of natural justice, as is alleged to be the position in the present case. Non-application of mind by the Enquiry Officer or the Disciplinary Authority, non-recording of reasons in support of the conclusion arrived at by them are also grounds on which the writ courts are justified in interfering with the orders of punishment. .....Allahabad Bank =VS= Krishna Narayan Tewari, [3 LM (SC) 1] ....View Full Judgment

Natural Justice¬:–– When a petition/memo is filed in the wrong jurisdiction or forum–– It is common practice to allow a party to file a petition/memo in the proper form when it is observed that the said memo/petition was filed in the incorrect form. In other words where instead of filing an appeal a revision was filed, direction would be given to either convert the revision into an appeal or to file the appeal afresh. In such circumstances, usually the time consumed in proceeding under the wrong jurisdiction or forum is directed to be deducted. Equally when a memo/appeal is filed instead of petition for revision the Court may direct that the appeal be treated as revision. …Kutub Uddin =VS= Syed Moinuddin Ahmed, [7 LM (AD) 31] ....View Full Judgment

Promotion–
The Tribunal allowed the said applications and held that the appellants herein were not treated as qualified for promotion i.e. eligible on the ground that they had not put in five years’ service in the Kerala region of EPFO, having relied on the words in the above quoted Rule which requires five years’ regular service “in the respective regions”. These appeals against the impugned common judgment and order dated 10.8.2011 passed by the High Court of Kerala in O.P.(CAT) Nos.2518 and 2525 of 2011, whereby the High Court affirmed the order dated 19.7.2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal Ernakulam. We allow these appeals, set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the High court as also the aforesaid order/s of the Tribunal insofar as these appellants are concerned, and hold that the appellants are entitled to be treated as eligible and qualified for promotion in the Kerala region for the post of EO/AO in the Employees Provident Fund Organisation. .....M.M. Thomas =VS= Union of India, (Civil), 2017 (2)– [3 LM (SC) 30] ....View Full Judgment