Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 157 (1.55 seconds)
Documents citing The State Of Gujarat & Anr vs Suryakant Chunilal Shah on 3 December, 1998

Ishwarbhai Marghabhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 25 August, 2000

32. As against the aforesaid submissions, Mr. Y.N. Oza, learned advocate for the petitioner has placed heavy reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat v. Suryakant Chunilal Shah, 1999 (3) GLR 2060 and submitted that even filing of the charge-sheet on the basis of the FIR lodged against an employee is not a valid ground to pass an order of premature retirement of that employee and maintained that the ratio laid down in aforementioned case is the complete answer to the contention advanced by Mr. Shelat.
Gujarat High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 1 - H K Rathod - Full Document

The State Of Jammu And Kashmir vs Hammid Ahmad Wani on 2 July, 2019

The High Court was of the opinion that mere pendency of a criminal case would not enable the authorities to pass an order of compulsory retirement without examining the entire service record. Mr.M.Shoeb Alam, learned counsel appearing for the State of Jammu and Kashmir submitted that the judgment of this Court in State of Gujarat & Anr. Vs. Suryakant Chunilal Shah was not properly appreciated by the High Court. He urged that this Court held in the above judgment that the question whether involvement in a criminal case would constitute relevant material for compulsory retirement or not would depend upon the circumstances of each case and the offence committed by the employee. He took us through the order 3 of compulsory retirement which is an innocuous order. He also showed us the report dated 26.6.2015 of the High Powered Committee in which it was mentioned that the assessment of his conduct over a period of time showed the employee does not enjoy a good reputation in the public. There was also an observation regarding the respondent abusing his official position in the Town Planning Organisation. It was further mentioned in the order that the Annual confidential Reports of the officer were not available.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 3 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Muhammad Yousuf Bhat. vs State Of J&K; & Ors. on 11 November, 2016

39. Since the Committee herein had founded their opinion/satisfaction solely on the allegations contained in the two FIRs and, consequently, the 25 impugned order was passed thereon, and, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Gujarat v. Suryakant Chunilal Shah (supra), since this Court has come to the conclusion that involvement of the petitioner in those criminal cases, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, would not constitute a relevant material for compulsory retiring the petitioner, coupled with the fact that there has been nothing adverse recorded in the petitioner's ACRs/APRs, particularly of the years relevant to the registering of the FIRs, I deem it unnecessary to refer to, reproduce and discuss the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the judgments cited and relied upon by the petitioner.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench Cites 29 - Cited by 4 - A Magrey - Full Document

Nishith Verma vs Registrar General, High Court Of ... on 5 July, 2011

In State of Gujarat Vs. Suryakant Chunilal Shah (supra) the Court considered the validity of order of compulsory retirement in the light of Rule 161 of Bombay Civil Services Rules, 1959 which did not have any provision akin to Fundamental Rule 56(2) as available in State of U.P.. In the light of aforesaid provision, the Court found from record that the employee was promoted in 1981, character roll entries for the next two years were not available on record. There was no adverse entry in his character roll including integrity though he was involved in two criminal cases in which final report was submitted in one and in the another a charge sheet was filed. Despite absence of any adverse entry, his integrity was shown doubtful by the Review Committee. The Committee on its own formed opinion that the employee was a person of "doubtful integrity" based merely on the FIR lodged against him. The Court observed that it was not the function of Review Committee to brand an employee as a person of doubtful integrity, if such remarks have not been recorded by the competent authority in his character roll. The reasons for setting aside the compulsory retirement, I find mention in para 28 of the judgment, which reads as under:
Allahabad High Court Cites 47 - Cited by 0 - S Agarwal - Full Document

Muhammad Yousuf Bhat vs State And (Of) J&K And Others And on 11 November, 2016

39. Since the Committee herein had founded their opinion/satisfaction solely on the allegations contained in the two FIRs and, consequently, the impugned order was passed thereon, and, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Gujarat v. Suryakant Chunilal Shah (supra), since this Court has come to the conclusion that involvement of the petitioner in those criminal cases, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, would not constitute a relevant material for compulsory retiring the petitioner, coupled with the fact that there has been nothing adverse recorded in the petitioners ACRs/APRs, particularly of the years relevant to the registering of the FIRs, I deem it unnecessary to refer to, reproduce and discuss the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the judgments cited and relied upon by the petitioner.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

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

13 In State of Gujarat & Anr. Vs. Suryakant Chunilal Shah (Supra), it was observed that the purpose of communication of adverse remark is to ofer an opportunity to an employee to improve himself or to explain his conduct so as to show that the adverse entry was wholly uncalled for or to silently brood over the matter and on being convinced that his previous conduct justifed such an entry, to improve his performance. The facts of this case would indicate that the employee was compulsorily retired. The authorities themselves were uncertain about the action which was to be taken, ultimately against him. There was hardly any material on the basis of which bonafde opinion could have been formed that it would be in public interest to retire employee, compulsorily. There were no adverse remarks and integrity was not doubted and after his promotion character roll entries were not available to doubt his integrity and no rpa 21/31 wp-1373-2000-j..doc material for compulsory retirement. It is in these circumstances, the observations regarding roll entries were made by the Court.
Bombay High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - P D Naik - Full Document

Ajay Kumar Sharma vs The Commissioner South Delhi Municipal ... on 28 May, 2025

22.6.6 In Pramod Kumar Bajaj, the ACRs of the officer reflected that, over the past several years, his integrity was regularly assessed as "beyond doubt". He was also graded as an "outstanding" officer for the past one decade, till the period just prior to the passing of the order of compulsory retirement. There were no adverse entries in his ACRs insofar as his work performance was concerned. Nor was any aspersion cast on his conduct or character during the said period. His efficiency and integrity remained unimpeachable through his career. In such circumstances, the mere fact that there may have been complaints pending against him in the vigilance directorate was held to be insufficient as a ground to compulsorily retire him from service. The Supreme Court, in that case, also went into the specifics of the complaints.
Delhi High Court Cites 65 - Cited by 0 - C H Shankar - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next