V.Rajasekaran vs The Government Of Tamilnadu on 20 September, 2010
In V.Balakrishnan V. The Joint Director of Agriculture & 3 Ors in W.A.No.1559 of 2009:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.47 seconds)M.Sadasivam vs The Chairman Cum Managing Director
Furthermore, as rightly contended by the learned counsel
for the petitioner, if there is some irregularity in the
appointment of the petitioner, the same could not be cited to
terminate the services of the petitioner, after he rendered
very long years of service, particularly, when there was no
suppression of fact on the part of the petitioner and if there
was any mistake committed by the Department, for which
the petitioner should not be made to suffer. The judgment
relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner in
V.Balakrishnan vs. The Joint Director of Agriculture,
Tiruvannamalai, and three others, W.A.No.1559 of 2009
dated 3.11.2009 squarely applies to the fcts of this case. In
the said judgment, the First Bench of this Court relied on
the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, (cited supra),
wherein at paragraph No.6, it has been held as follows:
C.Jacob Edwin vs The Director Of School Education on 7 April, 2010
and the other the decision of this Hon'ble First Bench Court of this Hon'ble Court in W.A.No.1559 of 2009 in V.Balakrishnan Vs. The Joint Director of Agriculture, Tiruvannamalai and 3 others. The relevant paragraphs reads as follows:
V.Amsaveni vs The District Forest Officer on 21 January, 2010
11. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has also relied on a decision of a Division Bench of this court dated 03.11.2009 in writ appeal No.1559/2009 V.Balakrishnan v. The Joint Director of Agriculture, Tiruvannamalai and others and also the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India & others vs. K.P.Tiwari reported in (2003) 9 SCC 129.
M.Ganesan vs The Principal on 1 August, 2011
Furthermore, the impugned order of termination was passed based on the letter dated 10.04.2001 of the third respondent Government, while the same was not furnished to the petitioner and his views were not obtained. That is, before passing the termination order, the petitioner was not heard. Hence, the impugned order is violative of principles of natural justice and the same is liable to be set aside. Further, the First Bench of this Court in V.BALAKRISHNAN VS. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, THIRUVANNAMALAI in W.A.No.1559 of 2009 (decided on 03.11.2009) has held that if an employee has continued for a substantial period, the same need not be disturbed.
The Joint Director Of School Education vs C.Lesley Jayaseelan on 23 February, 2011
The facts of the said judgment is also applicable to the case on hand in all
force.
A.Rajesh vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 14 February, 2011
The facts of the said judgment is also applicable to the case on hand in all
force.
1