Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.20 seconds)
Documents citing Karsanbhai R. Patel vs Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation And ... on 19 December, 1988

Lakshminarayana vs Karnataka State Seeds Corporation Ltd. on 17 April, 1996

In support of his contention the learned Counsel relied upon the decision of Supreme Court in the case of GLAXO LAB (I) v. LABOUR COURT, 1984(1) LLJ 16, KALRA v. PROJECT EQUIPMENT CORPORATION, 1984(2) LLJ 186 and the decision in R.V. PATEL v. AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, 1985(1) LLJ 527. Per contra Sri V. Satyanarayana, learned Counsel for respondent would submit that there is not much difference between the punishments, viz., dismissal from service and removal from service in service laws. In the first case it disqualifies the employee from any future employment and removal ordinarily does not and if the authority could impose severe punishment of dismissal, he can definitely impose lesser punishment of removal from service.
Karnataka High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 1 - H L Dattu - Full Document

H.R. Somappa vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 30 April, 2003

In the case of R.V. Patel v. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (supra), the Supreme Court had held that the dismissal of the petitioner on the ground of suppression of material fact in application for employment alleging it to be a misconduct had held that the dismissal of the petitioner to be bad in law as the alleged misconduct did not fall within the enumerated misconduct in the service regulations or standing orders. This view of the Supreme Court was based on the well settled canon of penal jurisprudence that removal or dismissal from the service on account of misconduct constitutes penalty in law. However, in the case of the applicant it is seen that he was neither removed or dismissed from service. In the facts and circumstances, this judgment is also not applicable in the case of the applicant.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1