An office superintendent in Northern Railways was compulsorily retired for misconduct as he supplied information to an employee against whom disciplinary action was initiated. The employee used this information challenging the disciplinary proceeding. The Supreme Court held that the information, containing a list of ticket numbers of workers who were absent on that date, was neither confidential nor privileged. It contained details that the employee had the right to ask for. Furnishing such information had not caused damage to the office except an inconvenient situation in contesting the case. The order of compulsory retirement was set aside (Pritam Singh vs Union of India).
Petitioners discharging duties of sweeping and cleaning of Police Line Quarters of the police department had worked on holidays but were not paid for those services. The police department contended that their services were of a civilian nature and different from other employees. Work of cleaning and sweeping has to be done daily and there are no provisions for wages on holidays. The Gujarat High Court held that in view of protection provided against forced labour, no public authority can require any person to render service and yet refuse to pay for the same (Nagjibhai Mathurbai Gohil vs State of Gujarat).
In a case involving dishonour of a cheque the accused requested evidence of a handwriting expert contending that he had not signed the cheque. The expert was unable to give any opinion about the signature. Convicted, the accused appealed. The Kerala High Court held that the inability of the expert to give an opinion does not entitle the accused to benefit of doubt. The accused kept silent after receipt of notice of demand. While dishonouring the cheque, the bank had not given reason of the signature not tallying. Request of expert opinion was a clever ploy and the trial court should have been cautious while accepting such a request (P.J. Francies vs A. Pradeep).
SOLON
