Sher Singh vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 17 October, 2003
(ii) Director General of Police and Ors. v. Mrityunjoy Sarkar and Ors., (1996) 8 SCC 280.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 31 (0.55 seconds)Abdus Salam vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 20 August, 2009
In Director General of Police & Ors. vs. Mritunjoy Sarkar the Supreme Court set
aside an order of discharge on the ground of production of a fake list without opportunity
of representation to the petitioner. In this case, there has been delay of over twenty years
in challenging the order of discharge and/or termination. In twenty four years the
petitioners could not get the Bihar Vidyalaya Pariksha Samity to certify that they had
cleared the examination and had been issued genuine certificates.
Union Of India & Others vs C.A.T. And Others on 26 September, 2000
of Police vs. Mrityunjoy Sarkar, and Union of India vs. Jayakumar Panda (supra). Thus viewed, since such procedure referred to above has not been followed in case of the termination of respondent No.2, hence, we decline to interfere with the order of the Tribunal setting aside the impugned termination.
Avadhesh Pratap Singh And Another vs State Of U.P. Thru. Consolidation ... on 14 March, 2023
(5) Director General of Police v. M. Sarkar, (1996) 3 SCR 530 (In this case constables were discharged from service on the ground that they produces a fake list from Employment Exchange without providing opportunity of hearing. Supreme Court approved the order of High Court setting aside discharge order on the ground of denial of opportunity of hearing).
Fakira And 12 Others vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 18 August, 2022
(5) Director General of Police v. M. Sarkar, [1996] 3 SCR 530 (In this case constables were discharged from service on the ground that they produces a fake list from Employment Exchange without providing opportunity of hearing. Supreme Court approved the order of High Court setting aside discharge order on the ground of denial of opportunity of hearing).
Sarju Deen And Another vs Additional Commissioner, ... on 2 August, 2023
(5)Director General of Police v. M. Sarkar, (1996) 3 SCR 530 (In this case constables were discharged from service on the ground that they produces a fake list from Employment Exchange without providing opportunity of hearing. Supreme Court approved the order of High Court setting aside discharge order on the ground of denial of opportunity of hearing).
Avtar Singh And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 29 April, 2003
14. The thrust of the argument on behalf of the applicants is that since the applicants were the confirmed employees and have put in more than about 9 or 10 years of service to the full satisfaction of the departmental authorities, they could not be discharged abruptly form service particularly when earlier a decision was taken to subject them to the disciplinary proceeding for the alleged mis-conduct. The disciplinary enquiry proceedings initiated against the applicants according to Mr. Patwalia were given a complete go-bye and instead a termination order was passed on the bald suggestion of the Commission that the nomination letters on the basis of which the applicants were appointed were not issued by the Commission and that their names did not find place in the result of the concerned examination. Mr. Patwalia made a reference to the decision the Apex Court in the case of Director General of Police and Ors. v. Mrityunjoy Sarkar and Ors., 1996(2) R.S.J. 506. In that case, the order of discharge was passed on the ground that list provided by the Employment Exchange was fake and the names of the discharged employees were fabricated as they did not correspond to the entries in the Employment Exchange. The Apex Court found that it was thus a clear case where the foundation for discharge was production of fake list of persons from Employment Exchange for recruitment as armed reserve constables. If that is accepted, that it would cast stgma on the respondents for future recruitment as they have produced fictitious record to secure employment. The Apex Court held that principles of natural justice require that they should be given a reasonable opportunity of representation in the enquiry to be conducted and appropriate orders with reasons in support thereof need to be passed.
J.J. Parmar vs State Of Gujarat on 10 December, 2003
"8. Faced with this situation, learned AGP has submitted before us that even if the termination order is quashed on this ground, the Government should be permitted now to hold an inquiry and in support of her submission, she has cited the decisions in the case of Director General of Police & Ors. v. Mrityunjoy Sarkar and Ors. reported in 1996 (8) SCC 280 and in the case of Union of India and ors. v. M. Bhaskaran, reported in 1995 Supp. (4) SCC 100. As against this, learned Counsel for the appellant has cited before us the decisions in the case of Union of India and ors. v. IS Singh reported in 1994 Supp.
Chaturgun And Ors. vs State Of U.P. And Ors. on 5 January, 2005
(5) Director General of Police v. M. Sarkar AIR 1997 SC 249 (In this case constables were discharged from service on the ground that they produces a fake list from Employment Exchange without providing opportunity of hearing. Supreme Court approved the order of High Court setting aside discharge order on the ground of denial of opportunity of hearing).
Rohit Kumar Son Of Shri Sita Ram vs Mukhya Nagar Adhikari, Kanpur Nagar ... on 21 November, 2005
18. Learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Director General of Police and Ors. v. Mrityunjoy Sarkar and Ors. in support of his contention that before discharging the services of the petitioner, opportunity was required to be given. A perusal of the said decision shows that the Supreme Court was not dealing with a matter relating to temporary service. It is, therefore, not applicable to the facts of the present case where admittedly the services of the petitioner were purely temporary in nature and could be terminated at any time without notice. In fact, the decisions of the Supreme Court, referred to above, in matters of temporary service are applicable to the facts of this case.