Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 144 (2.28 seconds)
Documents citing Ranendra Chandra Banerjee vs Union Of India on 18 February, 1963

Chandra Prakash Shahi vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 25 April, 2000

In Ranendra Chandra Banerjee vs. Union of India (supra), the Court, while considering the provisions of Rule 55-B, observed as under : "Therefore in a case covered by r.55-B all that is required is that the defects noticed in the work which make a probationer unsuitable for retention in the service should be pointed out to him and he should be given an opportunity to show cause against the notice, enabling him to give an explanation as to the faults pointed out to him and show any reason why the proposal to terminate his services because of his unsuitability should not be given effect to. If such an opportunity is given to a probationer and his explanation in reply thereto is given due consideration, there is in our opinion sufficient compliance of r.55-B. Generally speaking the purpose of a notice under r.55-B is to ascertain, after considering the explanation which a probationer may give, whether he should be retained or not and in such a case it would be sufficient compliance with that rule if the grounds on which the probationer is considered unsuitable for retention are communicated to him and any explanation given by him with respect to those ground is duly considered before an order is passed."
Supreme Court of India Cites 33 - Cited by 121 - S S Ahmad - Full Document

Chandra Prakash Shahi vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 25 April, 2000

In Ranendra Chandra Banerjee vs. Union of India (supra), the Court, while considering the provisions of Rule 55-B, observed as under : "Therefore in a case covered by r.55-B all that is required is that the defects noticed in the work which make a probationer unsuitable for retention in the service should be pointed out to him and he should be given an opportunity to show cause against the notice, enabling him to give an explanation as to the faults pointed out to him and show any reason why the proposal to terminate his services because of his unsuitability should not be given effect to. If such an opportunity is given to a probationer and his explanation in reply thereto is given due consideration, there is in our opinion sufficient compliance of r.55-B. Generally speaking the purpose of a notice under r.55-B is to ascertain, after considering the explanation which a probationer may give, whether he should be retained or not and in such a case it would be sufficient compliance with that rule if the grounds on which the probationer is considered unsuitable for retention are communicated to him and any explanation given by him with respect to those ground is duly considered before an order is passed."
Supreme Court of India Cites 33 - Cited by 306 - S S Ahmad - Full Document

Raj Kishore Yadav vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 3 May, 2021

In Ranendra Chandra Banerjee vs. Union of India, which again was a case relating to a probationer, it was held that on account of Rule 55-B of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules if the enquiry was held for the limited purpose of finding out whether the employee was fit to be retained or not, the said enquiry would not make the order punitive as the enquiry could not be related to any misconduct of the employee.
Patna High Court Cites 81 - Cited by 0 - S Pandey - Full Document

Puja Kumari And Anr vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 3 May, 2021

In Ranendra Chandra Banerjee vs. Union of India, which again was a case relating to a probationer, it was held that on account of Rule 55-B of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules if the enquiry was held for the limited purpose of finding out whether the employee was fit to be retained or not, the said enquiry would not make the order punitive as the enquiry could not be related to any misconduct of the employee.
Patna High Court Cites 81 - Cited by 0 - S Pandey - Full Document

Rajesh Kumar Mahato And Ors vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 3 May, 2021

In Ranendra Chandra Banerjee vs. Union of India, which again was a case relating to a probationer, it was held that on account of Rule 55-B of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules if the enquiry was held for the limited purpose of finding out whether the employee was fit to be retained or not, the said enquiry would not make the order punitive as the enquiry could not be related to any misconduct of the employee.
Patna High Court Cites 81 - Cited by 1 - S Pandey - Full Document

Dharampal Singh Dahiya vs Dr.B.A.Dasannacharya & Ors on 6 November, 2020

In the case of Rajendra Chandra Banerjee Vs. the Union of India (supra), the Constitution bench has observed that a Government servant who is on probation can be discharged during the period of probation and such discharge would not amount to dismissal or removal within the meaning of Article 311 (2) and would not attract the protection of that Article where the services of a probationary are terminated in accordance with rules and not by way of punishment. The probationary has no right to the post held by him and under the terms of his appointment, he is liable to be discharged at any time during the period of his probation subject to the rules governing such cases.
Bombay High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - P D Naik - Full Document

Arun Kumar Chaudhary vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 3 May, 2021

In Ranendra Chandra Banerjee vs. Union of India, which again was a case relating to a probationer, it was held that on account of Rule 55-B of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules if the enquiry was held for the limited purpose of finding out whether the employee was fit to be retained or not, the said enquiry would not make the order punitive as the enquiry could not be related to any misconduct of the employee.
Patna High Court Cites 81 - Cited by 12 - S Pandey - Full Document

Pratima Kumari And Ors vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 3 May, 2021

In Ranendra Chandra Banerjee vs. Union of India, which again was a case relating to a probationer, it was held that on account of Rule 55-B of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules if the enquiry was held for the limited purpose of finding out whether the employee was fit to be retained or not, the said enquiry would not make the order punitive as the enquiry could not be related to any misconduct of the employee.
Patna High Court Cites 81 - Cited by 0 - S Pandey - Full Document

Damodar Paswan vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 3 May, 2021

In Ranendra Chandra Banerjee vs. Union of India, which again was a case relating to a probationer, it was held that on account of Rule 55-B of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules if the enquiry was held for the limited purpose of finding out whether the employee was fit to be retained or not, the said enquiry would not make the order punitive as the enquiry could not be related to any misconduct of the employee.
Patna High Court Cites 81 - Cited by 0 - S Pandey - Full Document

Captain R.S. Saxena vs State Of Gujarat And Anr. on 10 September, 1963

21. Now, the contention off Mr. Nanayati is that the case of petitioner directly falls within Explanation II aforesaid and that in spite of the fact that the order of discharge has been designated by the Government as one of termination of service, it amounts to an order of removal or dismissal within tie meaning of Explanation II aforesaid. Mr. Nanavati contends that Rule 49 is not merely an administrative rule but that it is a statutory rule. On this basis, Mr. Nanavati submits that two results will follow. The first is that the order of discharge, being one of removal or dismissal within, the meaning of the Explanation II, it will also be removal or dismissal within the meaning of Clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution. For this proposition, Mr. Nanavati relies upon a judgment of the Supreme Court, delivered on 18-2-1963, in Ranendra Chander Banerjee v. Union of India, in Civil Appeal No. 271 of 1962: (AIR 1963 SC 1552). In that case, the same contention as is raised by Mr. Nanavati was also raised and that contention was based upon the same Explanation II. Their Lordships came to the conclusion that that Explanation did not apply to the facts of that particular case. However, their Lordships made the following observations on which Mr. Nanavati relies:
Gujarat High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next