Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (4.20 seconds)
Documents citing Union Of India vs I.M. Lal And Anr. on 20 January, 1972

Gujarat Housing Board vs C.G. Desai on 13 January, 1982

Mr. Raval placed great reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. M. E. Reddy [1980-I L.L.J. 7] wherein is observed that the confidential reports can certainly be considered by the appointing authority in passing the order of retirement under Rule 16(3) even if they are not communicated the officer concerned. The decision of the Review Committee is not binding on the Government of India. All that is necessary is that the Government of India should, before passing an order under Rule 16(3) consider the report of the Review Committee which is based on full and complete analysis of the history of the service of the employee concerned. It is further observed by the Supreme Court that it is not an entry here or an entry there which has to be taken into consideration by the Government but the overall picture of the Officer during the long of his service that he puts in has to be considered from the point of achieving higher standard of efficiency and dedication so as to be retained even after the Officer has put in the requisite number of years of service. The aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court cannot be of any assistance to Mr. Raval for the simple reason that even taking the overall view of all the confidential reports collectively at Exhibit 14 no other conclusion is possible save and except the conclusion that the employee concerned was an average one. Of course, he was not an extraordinary employee or a brilliant one or superefficient one, but similarly the concerned reports fail to paint a picture of a substandard employee or a dead wood so far as the plaintiff is concerned.
Gujarat High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - S B Majmudar - Full Document

Krishan Dev Puri vs Union Of India And Others on 17 November, 1981

13. Unfitness for service or unsuitability for service does not amount to misconduct, Union of India v. I. Ahmed, [1979-II L.L.J. 14]. Staff Circular No. 20 dated 28th October, 1952, which admittedly, are the conduct rules for the employees, also makes distinction between grounds of misconduct and grounds of unfitness/non-suitability. The circular states that unsoundness of mind, permanent physical weaknesses, worry arising out of litigation and domestic complications, speculation or such activities as may keep him pre-occupied during office hours resulting into a peculiar behavior on his part, may make him unfit for continuation in Bank's service. An employee may have committed no offence but he may have developed traits which may made him unsuitable in Bank's service. As against this the following are illustrated as grounds of misconduct in the said Circular :
Delhi High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Executive Committee Of Vaish Degree ... vs Lakshmi Narain And Ors on 12 December, 1975

The second category of cases are those where the relationship between the employer and the employee is governed by statute or sub-ordinate legislation, and where such is the case, the termination, which is the same thing as repudiation, may, in a given situation, be null and void and in that event, it would not have the effect of putting an end to the contract and the employee would be entitled to a declaration that his service is continuing. The doctrine that a contract of personal service cannot be specifically enforced would not stand in the way of the employee, because the termination being null and void, there being no repudiation at all in the eye of the law, there would be no question of enforcing specific performance of the contract of employment. What the employee would be claiming in such a case is not enforcement of a contract of personal service but declaration of statutory invalidity of an act done by the employer. The case would be of a kind similar to that decided by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in High Commissioner for India v. I. M. Lail(1) the essential feature of which was aptly and succinctly described by this Court in Dr. S. B. Dutt v. University of Delhi(2) in these words:
Supreme Court of India Cites 29 - Cited by 471 - S M Ali - Full Document

Ram Chander vs Union Of India & Ors on 2 May, 1986

After Parliament frustrated the attempt of the Government to delete the constitutional safeguard as evolved by this Court in Khem Chand's case following the principles laid down in the Privy Council decision in I.M. Lall's case by deletion of the words ' a reasonable opportunity of showing cause 995 against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him' by the Constitution (Fifteenth Amendment) Act, 1963, it seems somewhat strange that after more than a decade the Government of the day thought it fit to remove this valuable safeguard by the Forty-Second Amendment. It is particularly important to notice how closely Members of Parliament scrutinised the motives of the Government while discussing the Fifteenth Amendment Bill and it is profitable to read the debates leading to the passsng of the Fifteenth Amendment. m ere could scarcely be a better example of the principle that the constituent powers to amend the Constitution, however permissible, must be used with scrupulous attention to their true purpose and for reasons that are relevant and proper. A determined attempt on the part of the Government to unsertle the law as laid down by this Court was successfully frustrated on that occasion. Although the clause as originally drafted in the Amendment Bill was deficient insofar as it conferred no express protection as regards the second stage i.e. the stage of punishment, but the Fifteenth Amendment Act as passed, introduced the requirement of giving a reasonable opportunity on the penalty proposed, after the conclusion of the inquiry into the charges and after a penalty had been provisionally determined. After considerable debate in Parliament, Shri Ashok Sen, Law Minister, intervened, in deference to the concern expressed by Members representing all sections of the House over the Amendment Bill by which the Government was seeking to remove the opportunity at the second stage, and gave an assurance that he would move an amendment, making it clear that the second opportunity in regard to the punishment proposed would be retained, but such opportunity shall be only on the basis of the evidence adduced during the inquiry. me Government accordingly moved the following amendment :
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 290 - G L Oza - Full Document

Dresser-Rand India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs Assessee on 14 June, 2011

to be provided by its AE, and, accordingly, the action of the AO in treating the cost of such services at zero is confirmed". All these evidences were before the DRP, but there is not even a whisper about what was the nature of these documents, why does the DRP find these documents to be not satisfactory, what is the kind of evidence that was necessary to prove the factum of services having been availed, and what precisely is the reason that these documents cannot be relied upon. The soul of an order is in its reasoning, and unless the reasons for coming to a conclusion in the order are not set out, it is not possible to do a meaningful scrutiny of the order, but we find no reasoning at all in the order passed by the DRP. We may in this regard refer to the observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs M L Kapoor AIR 1974 SC 87, wherein Their Lordships have, inter alia, observed as follows:
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next