Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 387 (2.80 seconds)
Documents citing Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan vs Mehbub Alam Laskar on 22 January, 2008

Ex. Hav. Army Education Corps Rajesh ... vs Union Of India & Anr. on 20 August, 2008

However, it has been simultaneously observed in the case of Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan v. Mehbub Alam Laskar‟s case (supra)‟s case (supra) that mere holding a preliminary inquiry followed by an innocuous order of discharge, may not be held to be punitive in nature. The basic principle which is enunciated in these two cases is founded on the salutary rule that a person should not be condemned for misconduct without giving him an opportunity to defend himself.
Delhi High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - S K Kaul - Full Document

The Divisional Railway Manager vs Presiding Officer on 12 January, 2011

67. As held in the decision reported in (2008) 2 SCC 479 Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan Vs. Mehbub Alam Laskar), the Railway Administration is well aware that the order of termination rested on the allegations of serious nature and the termination is only the foundation. While there can be no denial of the fact that an employer is at liberty to initiate action against an erring employee, all that is required of an employer, particularly in the case of allegations of the nature herein is, to follow the dictum of Apex Court that irrespective of the status of the employee, Article 311 requirements have to be complied with, stricto senso. A mere holding of the preliminary enquiry calling for an explanation from the employee, per se, does not satisfy the requirements of the law in a case where the order of discharge is punitive in character.
Madras High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 1 - C Venkataraman - Full Document

K.Pandurangan vs The Chief Secretary on 18 September, 2009

In the eighth case relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner in NEHRU YUVA KENDRA SANGATHAN vs. MEHBUB ALAM LASKAR [(2008) 2 SCC 479], a probationer was terminated by a non-speaking order, informing him that in an enquiry conducted behind his back, he was found guilty of misappropriation of Government fund. For the above said reasons that it is not a case of disciplinary enquiry, this judgment of the Honourable Apex Court also has no application to the facts of the cases on hand.
Madras High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - E D Rao - Full Document

Biswajit Ghosh vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 19 December, 2011

iii) Nehru Yuva Sangathan Vs. Mehbub Alam Laskar, reported in (2008)2 SCC 479. 3 Opposing the application, Mr. Subrata Talukdar, learned counsel, appearing for the State, has relied on an unreported decision (WPST 220 of 2010,dated September 26, 2011) of this Court where one (Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.) of us was a party. The Division Bench observed, "from the order of discharge, we do not find any stigma attached to him. The petitioner was dismissed from service; hence no departmental proceeding was required to discharge him". Such decision was had in a case where the petitioner was on probation.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 3 - Cited by 9 - A K Banerjee - Full Document

Rahul Bhardwaj vs M/O Health And Family Welfare on 1 June, 2016

27. Mr. Bhushan submitted that, as has been rightly held by the High Court, the case of the Respondent was fully covered by the series of decisions of this Court which have also been referred to on behalf of the petitioners. Mr. Bhushan, however, laid special emphasis on the following decisions of this Court, some of which have also been cited on behalf of the petitioners, namely, (1) State of Bihar v. Shiva Bhikshuk Mishra [1970 (2) SCC 871]; (2) Shamsher Singh (supra); (3) Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. (supra); (4) Anoop Jaiswal v. Government of India & Anr. [1984 (2) SCC 369]; (5) Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan v. Mehbub Alam Laskar [JT 2008 (2) SC 163 : 2008 (2) SCC 479], wherein it has been repeatedly observed that if a discharge is based upon misconduct or if there is a live connection between the allegations of misconduct and discharge, then the same, even if couched in language which is not stigmatic, would amount to a punishment for which a departmental enquiry was imperative. Various other decisions were also cited by Mr. Bhushan, which reflect the same views as expressed by this Court in the above-mentioned decisions.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee) ... vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 22 April, 2024

141. Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan (supra) has held that, only in the event of unsatisfactory performance by the employee, the termination of probation is justified. However, when the foundation for such an order is not an unsatisfactory performance of the part of the employee but overt act amounting to misconduct, an opportunity of hearing to the employee concerned is imperative.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 164 - Cited by 0 - D Basak - Full Document

Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee) ... vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 22 April, 2024

141. Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan (supra) has held that, only in the event of unsatisfactory performance by the employee, the termination of probation is justified. However, when the foundation for such an order is not an unsatisfactory performance of the part of the employee but overt act amounting to misconduct, an opportunity of hearing to the employee concerned is imperative.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 164 - Cited by 0 - D Basak - Full Document

Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee) ... vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 22 April, 2024

141. Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan (supra) has held that, only in the event of unsatisfactory performance by the employee, the termination of probation is justified. However, when the foundation for such an order is not an unsatisfactory performance of the part of the employee but overt act amounting to misconduct, an opportunity of hearing to the employee concerned is imperative.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 164 - Cited by 0 - D Basak - Full Document

Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee) ... vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 22 April, 2024

141. Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan (supra) has held that, only in the event of unsatisfactory performance by the employee, the termination of probation is justified. However, when the foundation for such an order is not an unsatisfactory performance of the part of the employee but overt act amounting to misconduct, an opportunity of hearing to the employee concerned is imperative.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 164 - Cited by 0 - D Basak - Full Document

Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee) ... vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 22 April, 2024

141. Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan (supra) has held that, only in the event of unsatisfactory performance by the employee, the termination of probation is justified. However, when the foundation for such an order is not an unsatisfactory performance of the part of the employee but overt act amounting to misconduct, an opportunity of hearing to the employee concerned is imperative.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 164 - Cited by 0 - D Basak - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next