This book refers to the top 20 jurisprudences of the Supreme Court of India on “service issues”. The relevant sections, Case Note-Facts-Supreme Court Findings and Citation are given for each case. It will be useful to lawyers in the courts, courts of first instance, high courts and the Supreme Court. “… In the present case, the Public Prosecutor`s Office failed to clearly prove the unlawful satisfaction claim and we are therefore obliged to declare that it would be totally uncertain to confirm the complainant`s conviction under Article 13 (1) (d) (i) & (ii) in conjunction with Article 13 (2) of the Act as well. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. ” – SC: “In the particular circumstances of the case, especially given the fact that the complainant has been experiencing this torment since 1985, although he was acquitted by the criminal court in 1987, we would not order a new investigation by the department against him for the same facts. The complainant is immediately transferred to the post of security officer and also receives all salary arrears and all allowances from the date of suspension to reinstatement within three months. The complainant would also be entitled to his costs, which are estimated at Rs.15,000 /-. – SC: “Para 10 …. That Court considered that departmental and criminal proceedings could be continued simultaneously, provided that there was no blockage.

However, it is desirable to suspend the division`s investigation until the conclusion of the criminal proceedings if the departmental and criminal proceedings are based on identical and similar facts and the charge laid in the criminal proceedings against the defaulting employee is of a serious nature and involves complex legal and factual issues. `Conviction — Suspension of sentenceSC: `16. In the present case, following the defendant`s conviction by Special Judge CBI, the appellant acted within its jurisdiction by issuing a reasoned opinion under paragraph 39(4) of the 1960 Regulations. The learned single judge correctly dismissed the civil motion filed by the respondent challenging the appellant`s statement of reasons. The bench division`s judgment, which prevents the applicant from making a final decision on the case pending the sale of the criminal appeal, has no valid legal basis. conviction; Suspension of sentence — No fundamental right to reserveIt was decided by the Supreme Court in the mukesh Kumar & Anr case, among others. V. The State of Uttarakhand & Ors. As under :- “16… In view of the law promulgated by the Court, there is no doubt that the Land Government is not obliged to make reservations.

There is no inherent fundamental right of a person to make reservations about promotions. No mandamus can be issued by the court, which orders the state government to make reservations. According to the judgments of this Court in the cases of Indra Sawhney, Ajit Singh (II), M. Nagaraj and Jarnail Singh (loc. cit.) O.) it is clear that Article 16(4) and Article 16(4)(A) constitute enabling provisions and that the collection of quantifiable data demonstrating the insufficient representation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the civil service is a sine qua non for the provision of reserves in promotional actions. The data to be collected by the State Government are intended only to justify a reservation with regard to appointment or promotion to public authorities in accordance with Article 16(4) and Article 16(4)(A) of the Constitution. Therefore, the collection of data on the inadequate representation of members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, as mentioned above, is a prerequisite for the provision of reservations and is not required if the State Government has decided not to make reservations. Since the State is not obliged to make reservations in promotions, it is not obliged to justify its decision on the basis of quantifiable data showing that members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are adequately represented in State services. Even if the under-representation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the civil service is brought to the attention of that court, no mandamus may be addressed by that court to the State Government to make a reservation in the light of the law established by that court in C.A. Rajendran (above) and Suresh Chand Gautam (above).