Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 70 (1.14 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner, Food And Civil Supplies vs Prakash C. Saxena on 5 May, 1994

Sudha Sharma vs Govt. Of Nctd on 30 April, 2025

23. An identical questions came to be decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Ratnesh Kumar Choudhary Vs. Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna, connected OA Bihar and Others JT 2015 (9) 363, wherein having considered the ration of law laid down in previous judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974) 2 SCC 831, Radhey Shyam Gupta vs. U.P. State Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. and Another (1999) 2 SCC 21, State of U.P. vs. Kaushal Kishore Shukla (1991) 1 SCC 691, Triveni Shankar Saxena vs. State of U.P.(1992) Supp (1) SCC 524, State of U.P. vs. Prem Lata Misra (1994) 4 SCC 189, Samsher Singh (supra), Parshotam Lal Dhingra vs. Union of India AIR 1958 SC 36, State of Bihar vs. Gopi Kishore Prasad AIR 1960 SC 689, State of Orissa vs. Ram Narayan Das AIR 1961 SC 177, Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. vs. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha (1980) 2 SCC 593, Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. vs. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha (1980) 2 SCC 593, Anoop Jaiswal vs. Govt. of India (1984) 2 SCC 369, Nepal Singh vs. State of U.P. (1980) 3 SCC 288, Commissioner, Food & Civil Supplies vs. Prakash Chandra Saxena (1994) 5 SCC 177, Commissioner, Food & Civil Supplies vs. Prakash Chandra Saxena (1994) 5 SCC 177, Chandra Prakash Shahi vs. State of U.P. and Others (2000) 5 SCC 152, Union of India and Others vs. Mahaveer C. Singhvi (2010) 8 SCC 220, Dipti Prakash Banerjee vs. Satyendra Nath Bose National connected OA Centre for Basic Sciences (1999) 3 SCC 60, Pavanendra Narayan Verma vs. Sanjay Gandhi P.G.I. of Medical Sciences and Another (2002) 1 SCC 520] and State Bank of India and Others vs. Palak Modi and Another (2013) 3 SCC 607, it was ruled by the Apex Court that if the termination order is stigmatic and based or founded upon misconduct, would be a punitive order and court can lift the veil and declare that in the garb of termination simplicitor, the employer has punished an employee, for an act of misconduct. It was also held that if a probationer is discharged on the ground of misconduct or inefficiency or for similar reason, without a proper enquiry and without his getting a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the termination, it may amount to removal from service within the meaning of Article 311 (2). Hence, a show cause notice was required to be issued and opportunity of being heard has to be provided to such employees in departmental enquiry before passing any adverse order. In the absence of which, the termination order would be inoperative and non-est in the eyes of law.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ravinder Singh vs Delhi Transport Corporation, Govt. Of ... on 8 February, 2018

OA No.366/2017 with OA 375/2017 vs. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha (1980) 2 SCC 593, Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. vs. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha (1980) 2 SCC 593, Anoop Jaiswal vs. Govt. of India (1984) 2 SCC 369, Nepal Singh vs. State of U.P. (1980) 3 SCC 288, Commissioner, Food & Civil Supplies vs. Prakash Chandra Saxena (1994) 5 SCC 177, Commissioner, Food & Civil Supplies vs. Prakash Chandra Saxena (1994) 5 SCC 177, Chandra Prakash Shahi vs. State of U.P. and Others (2000) 5 SCC 152, Union of India and Others vs. Mahaveer C. Singhvi (2010) 8 SCC 220, Dipti Prakash Banerjee vs. Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences (1999) 3 SCC 60, Pavanendra Narayan Verma vs. Sanjay Gandhi P.G.I. of Medical Sciences and Another (2002) 1 SCC 520] and State Bank of India and Others vs. Palak Modi and Another (2013) 3 SCC 607, in respect of termination of the service of a probationer, ruled that if the termination order is stigmatic and based or founded upon misconduct, would be a punitive order and court can lift the veil and declare that in the garb of termination simpliciter, the employer has punished an employee, for an act of misconduct. It was also held that if a probationer is discharged on the ground of misconduct or inefficiency or for similar reason, without a proper enquiry and without his getting a reasonable opportunity of showing cause 9 OA No.366/2017 with OA 375/2017 against the termination, it may amount to removal from service within the meaning of Article 311(2).
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dharmender Singh vs Delhi Transport Corporation, Govt. Of ... on 8 February, 2018

OA No.366/2017 with OA 375/2017 vs. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha (1980) 2 SCC 593, Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. vs. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha (1980) 2 SCC 593, Anoop Jaiswal vs. Govt. of India (1984) 2 SCC 369, Nepal Singh vs. State of U.P. (1980) 3 SCC 288, Commissioner, Food & Civil Supplies vs. Prakash Chandra Saxena (1994) 5 SCC 177, Commissioner, Food & Civil Supplies vs. Prakash Chandra Saxena (1994) 5 SCC 177, Chandra Prakash Shahi vs. State of U.P. and Others (2000) 5 SCC 152, Union of India and Others vs. Mahaveer C. Singhvi (2010) 8 SCC 220, Dipti Prakash Banerjee vs. Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences (1999) 3 SCC 60, Pavanendra Narayan Verma vs. Sanjay Gandhi P.G.I. of Medical Sciences and Another (2002) 1 SCC 520] and State Bank of India and Others vs. Palak Modi and Another (2013) 3 SCC 607, in respect of termination of the service of a probationer, ruled that if the termination order is stigmatic and based or founded upon misconduct, would be a punitive order and court can lift the veil and declare that in the garb of termination simpliciter, the employer has punished an employee, for an act of misconduct. It was also held that if a probationer is discharged on the ground of misconduct or inefficiency or for similar reason, without a proper enquiry and without his getting a reasonable opportunity of showing cause 9 OA No.366/2017 with OA 375/2017 against the termination, it may amount to removal from service within the meaning of Article 311(2).
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 13 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Mange Ram vs M/O Finance on 27 February, 2020

"8. An identical question came to be decided by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the Ratnesh Kumar Choudhary Vs. Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna, Bihar and Others JT 2015 (9) 363, wherein having considered the previous judgments of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in cases Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974) 2 SCC 831, Radhey Shyam Gupta vs. U.P. State Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. and Another (1999) 2 SCC 21, State of U.P. vs. Kaushal Kishore Shukla (1991) 1 SCC 691, Triveni Shankar Saxena vs. State of U.P. (1992) Supp (1) SCC 524, State of U.P. vs. Prem Lata Misra (1994) 4 SCC 189, Samsher Singh (supra), Parshotam Lal Dhingra vs. Union of India AIR 1958 SC 36, State of Bihar vs. Gopi Kishore Prasad AIR 1960 SC 689, State of Orissa vs. Ram Narayan Das AIR 1961 SC 177, Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. vs. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha (1980) 2 SCC 593, Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. vs. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha (1980) 2 SCC 593, Anoop Jaiswal vs. Govt. of India (1984) 2 SCC 369, Nepal Singh vs. State of U.P. (1980) 3 SCC 288, Commissioner, Food & Civil Supplies vs. Prakash Chandra Saxena (1994) 5 SCC 177, Commissioner, Food & Civil Supplies vs. Prakash Chandra Saxena (1994) 5 SCC 177, Chandra Prakash Shahi 7 vs. State of U.P. and Others (2000) 5 SCC 152, Union of India and Others vs. Mahaveer C. Singhvi (2010) 8 SCC 220, Dipti Prakash Banerjee vs. Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences (1999) 3 SCC 60, Pavanendra Narayan Verma vs. Sanjay Gandhi P.G.I. of Medical Sciences and Another (2002) 1 SCC 520] and State Bank of India and Others vs. Palak Modi and Another (2013) 3 SCC 607, it was ruled by the Apex Court that if the termination order is stigmatic and based or founded upon misconduct, it would be a punitive order and court can lift the veil and declare that in the garb of termination simpliciter, the employer has punished an employee, for an act of misconduct. It was also held that if a probationer is discharged on the ground of misconduct or inefficiency or for similar reason, without a proper enquiry and without his getting a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the termination, it may amount to removal from service within the meaning of Article 311 (2). Hence, a show cause notice was required to be issued and opportunity of being heard has to be provided to such employees in departmental enquiry before passing any adverse order, in the absence of which, the termination order would be inoperative and non-est in the eyes of law.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Yudhveer Singh vs Comm. Of Police on 13 February, 2019

The Hon'ble Apex Court while examining the contention of the appellant that his termination order was punitive and in violation of the principles of natural justice, after considering the various judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974) 2 SCC 831, Radhey Shyam Gupta vs. U.P. State Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. and Another (1999) 2 SCC 21, State of U.P. vs. Kaushal Kishore Shukla (1991) 1 SCC 691, Triveni Shankar Saxena vs. State of U.P.(1992) Supp (1) SCC 524, State of U.P. vs. Prem Lata Misra (1994) 4 SCC 189, Samsher Singh (supra), Parshotam Lal Dhingra vs. Union of India AIR 1958 SC 36, State of Bihar vs. Gopi Kishore Prasad AIR 1960 SC 689, State of Orissa vs. Ram Narayan Das AIR 1961 SC 177, Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. vs. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha (1980) 2 SCC 593, Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. vs. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha (1980) 2 SCC 593, Anoop Jaiswal vs. Govt. of India (1984) 2 SCC 369, Nepal Singh vs. State of U.P. (1980) 3 SCC 288, Commissioner, Food & Civil Supplies vs. Prakash Chandra Saxena (1994) 5 SCC 177, Commissioner, Food & Civil Supplies vs. Prakash 6 OA No.893/2013 Chandra Saxena (1994) 5 SCC 177, Chandra Prakash Shahi vs. State of U.P. and Others (2000) 5 SCC 152, Union of India and Others vs. Mahaveer C. Singhvi (2010) 8 SCC 220, Dipti Prakash Banerjee vs. Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences (1999) 3 SCC 60, Pavanendra Narayan Verma vs. Sanjay Gandhi P.G.I. of Medical Sciences and Another (2002) 1 SCC 520] and State Bank of India and Others vs. Palak Modi and Another (2013) 3 SCC 607, ruled that if the termination order is stigmatic and based or founded upon misconduct, would be a punitive order and court can lift the veil and declare that in the garb of termination simpliciter, the employer has punished an employee, for an act of misconduct. It was also held that if a probationer is discharged on the ground of misconduct or inefficiency or for similar reason, without a proper enquiry and without his getting a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the termination, it may amount to removal from service within the meaning of Article 311 (2). Hence, a regular departmental enquiry was required to be conducted before passing any adverse order. In the absence of which, the termination order would be inoperative and non-est in the eyes of law. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment reads as under:-
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Devender Singh vs Govt. Of Nctd on 23 May, 2023

The Hon'ble Apex Court while examining the contention of the appellant that his termination order was punitive and in violation of the principles of natural justice, after considering the various judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974) 2 SCC 831, Radhey Shyam Gupta vs. U.P. State Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. and Another (1999) 2 SCC 21, State of U.P. vs. Kaushal Kishore Shukla (1991) 1 SCC 691, Triveni Shankar Saxena vs. State of U.P.(1992) Supp (1) SCC 524, State of U.P. vs. Prem Lata Misra (1994) 4 SCC 189, Samsher Singh (supra), Parshotam Lal Dhingra vs. Union of India AIR 1958 SC 36, State of Bihar vs. Gopi Kishore Prasad AIR 1960 SC 689, State of Orissa vs. Ram Narayan Das AIR 1961 SC 177, Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. vs. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha (1980) 2 SCC 593, Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. vs. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha (1980) 2 SCC 593, Anoop Jaiswal vs. Govt. of India (1984) 2 SCC 369, Nepal Singh vs. State of U.P. (1980) 3 SCC 288, Commissioner, Food & Civil Supplies vs. Prakash Chandra Saxena (1994) 5 SCC 177, Commissioner, Food & Civil Supplies vs. Prakash Chandra Saxena (1994) 5 SCC 177, Chandra Prakash Shahi vs. State of U.P. and Others (2000) 5 SCC 152, Union of India and Others vs. Mahaveer C. Singhvi (2010) 8 SCC 220, Dipti Prakash Banerjee vs. Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences (1999) 3 SCC 60, Pavanendra Narayan Verma vs. 9 OA No.660 of 2017 Sanjay Gandhi P.G.I. of Medical Sciences and Another (2002) 1 SCC 520] and State Bank of India and Others vs. Palak Modi and Another (2013) 3 SCC 607, ruled that if the termination order is stigmatic and based or founded upon misconduct, would be a punitive order and court can lift the veil and declare that in the garb of termination simpliciter, the employer has punished an employee, for an act of misconduct. It was also held that if a probationer is discharged on the ground of misconduct or inefficiency or for similar reason, without a proper enquiry and without his getting a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the termination, it may amount to removal from service within the meaning of Article 311 (2). Hence, a regular departmental enquiry was required to be conducted before passing any adverse order. In the absence of which, the termination order would be inoperative and non-est in the eyes of law. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment reads as under:-
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Isha Sharma vs Govt. Of Nctd on 16 May, 2016

27. An identical question came to be decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Ratnesh Kumar Choudhary Vs. Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna, Bihar and Others JT 2015 (9) 363, wherein having considered the previous judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974) 2 SCC 831, Radhey Shyam Gupta vs. U.P. State Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. and Another (1999) 2 SCC 21, State of U.P. vs. Kaushal Kishore Shukla (1991) 1 13 OA No.665/2015 And connected cases SCC 691, Triveni Shankar Saxena vs. State of U.P.(1992) Supp (1) SCC 524, State of U.P. vs. Prem Lata Misra (1994) 4 SCC 189, Samsher Singh (supra), Parshotam Lal Dhingra vs. Union of India AIR 1958 SC 36, State of Bihar vs. Gopi Kishore Prasad AIR 1960 SC 689, State of Orissa vs. Ram Narayan Das AIR 1961 SC 177, Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. vs. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha (1980) 2 SCC 593, Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. vs. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha (1980) 2 SCC 593, Anoop Jaiswal vs. Govt. of India (1984) 2 SCC 369, Nepal Singh vs. State of U.P. (1980) 3 SCC 288, Commissioner, Food & Civil Supplies vs. Prakash Chandra Saxena (1994) 5 SCC 177, Commissioner, Food & Civil Supplies vs. Prakash Chandra Saxena (1994) 5 SCC 177, Chandra Prakash Shahi vs. State of U.P. and Others (2000) 5 SCC 152, Union of India and Others vs. Mahaveer C. Singhvi (2010) 8 SCC 220, Dipti Prakash Banerjee vs. Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences (1999) 3 SCC 60, Pavanendra Narayan Verma vs. Sanjay Gandhi P.G.I. of Medical Sciences and Another (2002) 1 SCC 520] and State Bank of India and Others vs. Palak Modi and Another (2013) 3 SCC 607, it was ruled by the Apex Court that if the termination order is stigmatic and based or founded upon misconduct, would be a punitive order and court can lift the veil and declare 14 OA No.665/2015 And connected cases that in the garb of termination simpliciter, the employer has punished an employee, for an act of misconduct. It was also held that if a probationer is discharged on the ground of misconduct or inefficiency or for similar reason, without a proper enquiry and without his getting a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the termination, it may amount to removal from service within the meaning of Article 311 (2). Hence, a show cause notice was required to be issued and opportunity of being heard has to be provided to such employees in departmental enquiry before passing any adverse order. In the absence of which, the termination order would be inoperative and non-est in the eyes of law.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jaibir Antil vs Govt. Of Nctd on 10 August, 2016

Sequelly, the same view was followed by this Tribunal in cases Jaibir Antil Vs. Director, Department of Women and Child Development, Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Others in OA No.100/1232/2014 decided on 10.08.2016, Mahavir Singh Vs. DTC & Others in OA No.100/2903/2013 decided on 08.09.2016 and Jasbir Singh Vs. DTC in OA No.100/3760/2013 decided on 24.10.2016. wherein having considered the previous judgments of Hon'ble 12 OA No.100/1232/2014 Supreme Court in cases Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974) 2 SCC 831, Radhey Shyam Gupta vs. U.P. State Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. and Another (1999) 2 SCC 21, State of U.P. vs. Kaushal Kishore Shukla (1991) 1 SCC 691, Triveni Shankar Saxena vs. State of U.P.(1992) Supp (1) SCC 524, State of U.P. vs. Prem Lata Misra (1994) 4 SCC 189, Samsher Singh (supra), Parshotam Lal Dhingra vs. Union of India AIR 1958 SC 36, State of Bihar vs. Gopi Kishore Prasad AIR 1960 SC 689, State of Orissa vs. Ram Narayan Das AIR 1961 SC 177, Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. vs. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha (1980) 2 SCC 593, Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. vs. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha (1980) 2 SCC 593, Anoop Jaiswal vs. Govt. of India (1984) 2 SCC 369, Nepal Singh vs. State of U.P. (1980) 3 SCC 288, Commissioner, Food & Civil Supplies vs. Prakash Chandra Saxena (1994) 5 SCC 177, Commissioner, Food & Civil Supplies vs. Prakash Chandra Saxena (1994) 5 SCC 177, Chandra Prakash Shahi vs. State of U.P. and Others (2000) 5 SCC 152, Union of India and Others vs. Mahaveer C. Singhvi (2010) 8 SCC 220, Dipti Prakash Banerjee vs. Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences (1999) 3 SCC 60, Pavanendra Narayan Verma vs. Sanjay Gandhi P.G.I. of Medical Sciences and Another (2002) 1 SCC 520] and State 13 OA No.100/1232/2014 Bank of India and Others vs. Palak Modi and Another (2013) 3 SCC 607, it was ruled by the Apex Court that if the termination order is stigmatic and based or founded upon misconduct, would be a punitive order and court can lift the veil and declare that in the garb of termination simpliciter, the employer has punished an employee, for an act of misconduct. It was also held that if a probationer is discharged on the ground of misconduct or inefficiency or for similar reason, without a proper enquiry and without his getting a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the termination, it may amount to removal from service within the meaning of Article 311 (2). Hence, a show cause notice was required to be issued and opportunity of being heard has to be provided to such employees in departmental enquiry before passing any adverse order. In the absence of which, the termination order would be inoperative and non-est in the eyes of law.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mahavir Singh vs Delhi Transport Corporation, Govt. Of ... on 8 September, 2016

21. An identical question came to be decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Ratnesh Kumar Choudhary Vs. Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna, Bihar and Others JT 2015 (9) 363, wherein having considered the previous judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974) 2 SCC 831, Radhey Shyam Gupta vs. U.P. State Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. and Another (1999) 2 SCC 21, State of U.P. vs. Kaushal Kishore Shukla (1991) 1 SCC 691, Triveni Shankar Saxena vs. State of U.P.(1992) Supp (1) SCC 524, State of U.P. vs. Prem Lata Misra (1994) 4 SCC 189, Samsher Singh (supra), Parshotam Lal Dhingra vs. Union of India AIR 1958 SC 36, State of Bihar vs. Gopi Kishore Prasad AIR 1960 SC 689, State of Orissa vs. Ram Narayan Das AIR 1961 SC 177, Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. vs. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha (1980) 2 SCC 593, Gujarat Steel 10 OA No.100/2903/2013 Tubes Ltd. vs. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha (1980) 2 SCC 593, Anoop Jaiswal vs. Govt. of India (1984) 2 SCC 369, Nepal Singh vs. State of U.P. (1980) 3 SCC 288, Commissioner, Food & Civil Supplies vs. Prakash Chandra Saxena (1994) 5 SCC 177, Commissioner, Food & Civil Supplies vs. Prakash Chandra Saxena (1994) 5 SCC 177, Chandra Prakash Shahi vs. State of U.P. and Others (2000) 5 SCC 152, Union of India and Others vs. Mahaveer C. Singhvi (2010) 8 SCC 220, Dipti Prakash Banerjee vs. Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences (1999) 3 SCC 60, Pavanendra Narayan Verma vs. Sanjay Gandhi P.G.I. of Medical Sciences and Another (2002) 1 SCC 520] and State Bank of India and Others vs. Palak Modi and Another (2013) 3 SCC 607, it was ruled by the Apex Court that if the termination order is stigmatic and based or founded upon misconduct, would be a punitive order and court can lift the veil and declare that in the garb of termination simpliciter, the employer has punished an employee, for an act of misconduct. It was also held that if a probationer is discharged on the ground of misconduct or inefficiency or for similar reason, without a proper enquiry and without his getting a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the termination, it may amount to removal from service within the meaning of Article 311 (2). Hence, a show cause notice was required to 11 OA No.100/2903/2013 be issued and opportunity of being heard has to be provided to such employees in departmental enquiry before passing any adverse order. In the absence of which, the termination order would be inoperative and non-est in the eyes of law.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 Next