Admission Denial can be filed after filing Written Statement

 COSCO International (P) Ltd. v. Jagat Singh Dugar, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1113

Re: Warning v. Censure - Service Law

10. The present cases are of un-recorded warning. Supreme Court in State of M.P. v. L.A. Qureshi ((1998) 9 SCC 261) which was a case of censure which is theminor most penalty has not agreed with the submission of the counsel for the "employee that censure is only a recorded warning and does not constitute punishment. They have further held that censure cannot be equated with warning. In this case also, it has been held that warning is not penalty under the Rules. Paras 7 and 8 of the judgment are as follows:

"7. The submission of Shri Khanduja is that "censure" is only a recorded warning and does not constitute punishment and, therefore, the directions contained in the circular in relation to imposition of minor penalty would not apply and the Tribunal was justified in giving the directions for opening of the sealed cover and for giving effect to the recommendations of the DPC.

8. We are unable to accept the said contention of Shri Khanduja. "Censure" cannot be equated with a warning since under Rule 10 of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, "censure" is one of the minor penalties that can be imposed on a Government servant. It cannot, therefore, be said that the penalty of censure which was imposed on the respondent in the departmental proceedings was not a penalty as contemplated in the circular dated 2-5-1990. Once it is held that a minor penalty has been imposed on the respondent in the departmental proceedings, the direction given in the said circular would be applicable and the sealed cover contain-;ing recommendations of the DPC could not be opened and the recommendations of the DPC could not be given effect because the respondent has not been fully exonerated and a minor penalty has been imposed. The respondent can only be considered for pro motion on prospective basis from a date after the conclusion of the departmental pro ceedings."

(Emphasis supplied)

Warning v. Censure - Service Law

in Jagjiwan Chand Bhandari v. Registrar, Rajasthan High Court (RLR 1988 (1) 405) wherein it has been held that censure and recorded warnings are two different things. Former is a penalty whereas latter is not even a penalty. Division Bench of this Court after relying on several dictionary meanings further came to the conclusion that censure and warning have two different connotations but speaking in service parlance the incident is same that incumbent is found 'wanting'. Proper expression for imposing the punishment is censure but none-the-less the incumbent was found wanting in conduct. Therefore, the recorded warning should not be treated as a punishment contemplated in the Service Rules but is definitely an adverse material showing lack of efficiency on the part of the incumbent. The said case is of recorded warning whereas present case is of unrecorded warning. 

Meaning of Forthwith

Gulraj Shroff v. Kaniram Sureka, 1937 SCC OnLine Cal 251

Preliminary Objection to be decided first

Weather accused is to be heard at the stage of pre-summoning by using section 340

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 195, 340 - Whether Section 340 CrPC mandates a preliminary inquiry and an opportunity of hearing to the would-be accused before a complaint is made under Section 195 CrPC by a Court - There is no question of opportunity of hearing in a scenario of this nature - Scope and ambit of such a preliminary inquiry. State of Punjab v. Jasbir Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 776

Impleadment of subsequent purchase are

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order I Rule 10 - Plaintiffs are the domius litis - Unless the court suo motu directs to join any other person not party to the suit for effective decree and/or for proper adjudication as per Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, nobody can be permitted to be impleaded as defendants against the wish of the plaintiffs - In case the counter-claim is allowed, it will not be open for the plaintiffs to contend that no decree in the counter-claim be passed in absence of the subsequent purchasers - Non-impleading the subsequent purchasers as defendants on the objection raised by the plaintiffs shall be at the risk of the plaintiffs. (Para 5 - 7) Sudhamayee Pattnaik v. Bibhu Prasad Sahoo, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 773