Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968

5 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

VED MITIER GILLversusUNION TERRITORY ADMINISTRATION, CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS

2015 INSC 26426 March 2015Dismissed

The case concerned the dismissal of Deputy Superintendent Ved Mitter Gill and four other jail officials after four under‑trial terrorists escaped from Model Jail, Burail, Chandigarh through a 94‑foot tunnel. The authorities invoked clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution to dispense with

UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHERversusTULSIRAM PATEL AND OTHERS

1985 INSC 15511 July 1985Disposed off

This Constitution Bench judgment interprets the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India, which allows dismissal, removal, or reduction in rank of a civil servant without an inquiry in three exceptional circumstances: conviction on a criminal charge, when it is not reasonably practicable to hold an

RAM CHANDERversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

1986 INSC 1072 May 1986Appeal(s) allowed

Ram Chander, a Grade B shunter, was removed from railway service for assaulting his superior. An ex parte enquiry found him guilty, and the General Manager imposed removal. The appellant appealed to the Railway Board under Rule 18(ii) of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968, but the Board dismissed th

MATHURA PRASADversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2006 INSC 7781 November 2006Appeal(s) allowed

Mathura Prasad, a casual labourer, was shortlisted for regularisation and his service card was sent for verification, where it was deemed fake. A departmental inquiry was held, but the inquiry officer’s report did not clearly state whether the card was genuine. The disciplinary authority sent a demi‑official letter ask

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ETC.versusPROHLAD GUHA ETC.

2024 INSC 5631 August 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The respondents were appointed to the Eastern Railway on compassionate grounds, but the railway authority later discovered that the documents supporting their claims were forged and terminated their services. The respondents challenged the termination before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which dismissed their ap

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search