Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.87 seconds)
Documents citing Samsher Singh And Another vs State Of Punjab And Others on 7 March, 2013

R H Joshi vs Gujarat Water Supply And Sewerage ... on 23 December, 2014

24. Further, the reliance placed by learned Advocate Shri B.T.Rao referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr. (supra) with the observations made in paragraph 40, 44, 48 and 57 is a clear answer to such a contention that it has to be considered in the background of rules of business laying down the procedure that the Governor will exercise the discretion. Therefore, in the facts of the present case, such a contention has been throughly misconceived and cannot be accepted.
Gujarat High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - R H Shukla - Full Document

K.Mahesh Menon vs Centre For Development Of Advanced ... on 16 May, 2013

This very question was gone into recently in Radhey Shyam Gupta v. U.P. State Agro Industries Corpn. Ltd. and reference was made to the development of the law from time to time starting from Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India to the concept of `purpose of enquiry' introduced by Shah, J. (as he then was) in State of Orissa v. Ram Narayan Das and to the seven-Judge Bench decision in Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab and to post-Samsher Singh case-law. This Court had the occasion to make a detailed examination of what is the `motive' and what is the `foundation' on which the innocuous order is based.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Prakash Singh Markole vs The Union Of India on 3 July, 2013

10. If we apply the ratio of law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment, we find that in the instant case the competent authority considering that the applicant remained unauthorisedly absent without submitting any application for leave and even left his home without leaving his address with his father, and submitted application for leave through speed post, which was dated 20.7.2009 whereas it was actually dispatched only on 25.7.2009 from Waraseoni and annexed medical certificate purportedly issued on 06.07.2009 itself by doctors at District Hospital, Balaghat, did not consider the application as genuine and further considering that the complaints of the parents of the students regarding deposit of fees with the applicant, which was never deposited in the school account, terminated the services of the applicant during probationary period, as per para 8 of his appointment order by paying him salary of a month in lieu of notice period. The aforesaid order has been passed without conducting any enquiry, as the competent authority did not want to continue the applicant, who remained unauthorisedly absent for a long period without submitting any application for leave and against whom there were serious complaint of accepting fees from the students of his class and not depositing the same in school account. The enquiry was never held and no findings of guilt were arrived against the applicant and the employer was also not inclined to conduct an enquiry and at the same time the employer did not want to continue the applicant against whom there were complaints. Thus, it was a case of motive and the order of termination can not be said to be bad in law.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Arun P.Diwakar vs The State Bank Of India on 30 August, 2013

We may also add that the abstract proposition laid down in paragraph 29 of the judgment in Pavanendra Narayan Verma v. Sanjay Gandhi PGI of Medical Sciences (supra) is not only contrary to the Constitution Bench judgment in Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab (supra), but large number of other judgments  State of Bihar v. Shiva Bhikshuk Mishra (supra), Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. v. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha (supra) and Anoop Jaiswal v. Government of India (supra) to which reference has been made by us and to which attention of the two-Judge Bench does not appear to have been drawn. Therefore, the said proposition must be read as confined to the facts of that case and cannot be relied upon for taking the view that a simple order of termination of service can never be declared as punitive even though it may be founded on serious allegation of misconduct or misdemeanor on the part of the employee.
Madras High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - M Venugopal - Full Document

Prem Kishore vs Central Warehousing Corporation on 8 April, 2013

We may also add that the abstract proposition laid down in paragraph 29 of the judgment in Pavanendra Narayan Verma v. Sanjay Gandhi PGI of Medical Sciences (supra) is not only contrary to the Constitution Bench judgment in Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab (supra), but large number of other judgments - State of Bihar v. Shiva Bhikshuk Mishra (supra), Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. v. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha (supra) and Anoop Jaiswal v. Government of India (supra) to which reference has been made by us and to which attention of the two-Judge Bench does not appear to have been drawn.
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - S R Bhat - Full Document

Consumers Guidance Society (Regd. ... vs The Government Of Andhra Pradesh Rep. By ... on 9 April, 2014

39. From the aforesaid authoritative pronouncements and views of jurist, we find that His Excellency the Governor even sometimes as mentioned in those judgments, may refuse to act upon the advice given by the Council of Ministers and in that case it would be fit and proper to act in his own discretion for His Excellency the Governor is duty bound to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and law in furtherance of service and wellbeing of the people sticking to his Oath form which is produced hereunder:
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - P V Kumar - Full Document

Girish Satyanarayan Shukla vs High Court Of Judicature At Mumbai on 4 August, 2014

7. He invited the attention of the Court to the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab and Another 1. He relied upon another decision of the Apex Court in the case of Jarnail Singh and Others, etc. v. State of Punjab and Others2. Inviting the attention of the Court to what is held by the Apex Court in Paragraph 32 of the said decision, he submitted that though the impugned order does not refer to any allegation against 1 (1974)2 SCC 831 2 AIR 1986 SC 1626 ::: Downloaded on - 04/08/2014 23:49:57 ::: ash 8 wp-96.07 the Petitioner, the attending circumstances as well as the basis of the order will have to be taken into consideration for deciding the legality of the same. He submitted that as this is a case where a specific case has been made by the Petitioner that the order impugned is based on the misdemeanor and/or misconduct of the Petitioner, it is the duty of the Court to lift the veil and to see the real circumstances as well as the basis and foundation of the order complained of. He, therefore, submitted that this Court will have to peruse the record as the same is not made available to the Petitioner. He urged that there is no communication made to the Petitioner of the remarks in his ACRs.
Bombay High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - A Oka - Full Document

Manoj Narula vs Union Of India on 27 August, 2014

In Samsher Singh (supra), Ray, CJ, speaking for the majority, opined that the President as well as the Governor is the constitutional or the formal head and exercise the power and functions conferred on them by or under the Constitution on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, save in spheres where the Governor is required by or under the Constitution to exercise his functions in his discretion. The learned Chief Justice further observed that the satisfaction of the President or the Governor in the constitutional sense in the Cabinet system of Government is really the satisfaction of the Council of Ministers on whose aid and advice the President or the Governor generally exercises his powers and functions and, thereafter, it has been held that they are required to act with the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers and are not required by the Constitution to act personally without the aid and advice. Krishna Iyer, J., speaking for himself and Bhagwati,J., opined that under the Constitution, the President and Governor, custodian of all executive and other powers under various Articles, are to exercise their formal constitutional powers only upon and in accordance with the due advice of their Ministers, save in few well-known exceptional situations. The learned Judge has carved out certain exceptions with which we are really presently not concerned with.
Supreme Court of India Cites 133 - Cited by 146 - Full Document
1   2 Next