Complexity of a decision-making process cannot be a defence when a grievance is made before the Court by a citizen that his fundamental right to equality has been violated

C.M. Thri Vikrama Varma v. Avinash Mohanty, (2011) 7 SCC 385 at page 396

26. In our view, complexity of a decision-making process cannot be a defence when a grievance is made before the Court by a citizen that his fundamental right to equality has been violated. When such a grievance is made before the Court, the authorities have to justify their impugned decision by placing the relevant material before the Court.

 

Enquiry Officer can offer his views but cannot make strong recommendation for imposition of a particular Punishment.

State of Uttarnchal & Ors. Vs. Kharak Singh

(2008) 8 SCC 236

Paras- 18-19

Disciplinary authority is bound to record reasons for disagreeing with findings of Enquiry Officer and to supply a copy thereof to delinquent, non furnishing recorded reasons from enquiry report prejudice delinquent and hence consequent order of punishment is vitiated.

S.P. Malhotra Vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors.

(2013) 7 SCC 251

Para- 7 & 13 to 20

Any material which goes into decision making process cannot be denied to employee

‎Oriental Bank of Commerce v. S.S. Sheokand and Anr, 

2014 5 SCC 172

New fact/ New plea cannot be taken in respect of any factual controversy

1. National Textile Corporation Ltd. Vs Nareshkumar Badrikumar Jagad & Ors.

(2011) 12 SCC 695

Para-19

2. Sanghvi Reconditioners Pvt Ltd. Vs. Union of India 

(2010) 3 SCC 733

Para-31 & 32

3. Greater Mohali Area Development Authority & Ors. Vs. Manju Jain & Ors. 

(2010) 9 SCC 157

Para-26 & 27

Creation of forum and transfer of pending matters

Creation of a different or a new appellate forum by itself is not sufficient to accept the argument/contention of an implied transfer. Something more substantial or affirmative is required which is not perceptible from 2003 Act.

 

A right of appeal as well as forum is a vested right unless the said right is taken away by the legislature by an express provision in the statute by necessary intention.

 

(2014) 5 SCC 219

Interim order passed by SC not to be handed out by HC

Jamal Ahmad v. State of UP, 2003 6 AWC5294All

"Here in the instant case, only the interim order has been passed in SLP. We do not know the grounds taken by the Petitioners in that SLP. This Court has no authority to expand or restrict the operation of the interim order passed by the Apex Court."