Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 76 (0.99 seconds)
Documents citing State Of U.P. And Another State Of U.P. ... vs Km. Prem Lata Misra And Others on 21 April, 1994

Punjab State Through The Secretary, ... vs Anil Kumar on 23 November, 2001

In my opinion, the ratio of the decisions of the Supreme Court in State of U.P. and Ors. v. Krishan Kumar Sharma (supra) and State of U.P. v. Prem Lata Mishra (supra), the first part of the propositions laid down in R.S.Gupta v. Union of India (supra) and principles No. (i) and (ii) laid down in Sher Singh v. State of Haryana (supra) are fully applicable to the case in hand. Therefore, it must be held that termination of the service of the respondent by way of discharge under Rule 12.21 of the Rules was not stigmatic or punitive and the Courts below committed a serious illegality by declaring the same to be punitive merely because in the written statement, reference had been made to the respondent's absence from duty on two occasions.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Lalchand Tewani S/O Late Shri Bachumal vs Union Of India on 7 May, 2021

49 In State of U.P. v. Prem Lata Mishra, A.I.R. 1994 S.C. 2411, the Supreme court held that whether the services of the respondent, who was a temporary appointee, were terminated after considering the fact that she was rank irregular in her duties and left office without permission, the same could not be treated as punitive. The facts of that case were that the respondent was temporarily appointed as the Assistant Project Officer on 20th May 1980 on the recommendations of the Selection Committee. In April and May, 1982, the Superior Officer reported that her work was not satisfactory. Consequently, her services were terminated by giving one month's pay and allowances in lieu of one month's notice. The High Court held that termination was punitive because it was based on the allegations for misconduct, namely, absence from duty. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court reversed the order of the High Court and held as under: ­ "If misconduct is the foundation to pass the order, then an enquiry into misconduct should be conducted and an action according to law should follow. But if it is (sic) motice, it is not incumbent upon the competent officer to have the enquiry conducted and the service of a temporary employee could be terminated in terms of the order of appointment or rules giving one month's notice or pay salary in lieu thereof. Even if an enquiry was initiated, it could be dropped midway and action could be taken in terms of the rules or order of appointment. The same principles applies to the facts in this case. It is seen that the respondent was appointed by direct recruitment by selection committee constituted by the government in this behalf and on finding about the suitability to the post as an Asstt. Project Officer, the respondent was appointed and was posted to the place where she had joined. Thereafter, her work was supervised by the higher officers and two officers have submitted their reports concerning the performance of the duties by the respondent. She wax regularly irregular in her duties, insubordination and left the office during office house without permission etc. On consideration thereof, the competent authority found that the respondent is not fit to be continued in service as Page 34 of 38 Downloaded on : Fri May 07 23:43:26 IST 2021 C/LPA/703/2020 CAV JUDGMENT her work and conduct were unsatisfactory under these circumstances the termination is for her unsuitability or unfitness but not by way of punishment as a punitive measure and one in terms of the order of appointment and also the Rules. Accordingly, the High Court has gone against settled law in allowing the writ petition."
Gujarat High Court Cites 45 - Cited by 0 - V Nath - Full Document

Lalchand Tewani S/O Late Shri Bachumal vs Union Of India on 7 May, 2021

49 In State of U.P. v. Prem Lata Mishra, A.I.R. 1994 S.C. 2411, the Supreme court held that whether the services of the respondent, who was a temporary appointee, were terminated after considering the fact that she was rank irregular in her duties and left office without permission, the same could not be treated as punitive. The facts of that case were that the respondent was temporarily appointed as the Assistant Project Officer on 20th May 1980 on the recommendations of the Selection Committee. In April and May, 1982, the Superior Officer reported that her work was not satisfactory. Consequently, her services were terminated by giving one month's pay and allowances in lieu of one month's notice. The High Court held that termination was punitive because it was based on the allegations for misconduct, namely, absence from duty. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court reversed the order of the High Court and held as under: ­ "If misconduct is the foundation to pass the order, then an enquiry into misconduct should be conducted and an action according to law should follow. But if it is (sic) motice, it is not incumbent upon the competent officer to have the enquiry conducted and the service of a temporary employee could be terminated in terms of the order of appointment or rules giving one month's notice or pay salary in lieu thereof. Even if an enquiry was initiated, it could be dropped midway and action could be taken in terms of the rules or order of appointment. The same principles applies to the facts in this case. It is seen that the respondent was appointed by direct recruitment by selection committee constituted by the government in this behalf and on finding about the suitability to the post as an Asstt. Project Officer, the respondent was appointed and was posted to the place where she had joined. Thereafter, her work was supervised by the higher officers and two officers have submitted their reports concerning the performance of the duties by the respondent. She wax regularly irregular in her duties, insubordination and left the office during office house without permission etc. On consideration thereof, the competent authority found that the respondent is not fit to be continued in service as Page 34 of 38 Downloaded on : Sat Jan 15 00:53:45 IST 2022 C/LPA/703/2020 CAV JUDGMENT her work and conduct were unsatisfactory under these circumstances the termination is for her unsuitability or unfitness but not by way of punishment as a punitive measure and one in terms of the order of appointment and also the Rules. Accordingly, the High Court has gone against settled law in allowing the writ petition."
Gujarat High Court Cites 45 - Cited by 0 - V Nath - Full Document

Mangali Prasad (State) vs State Of U.P. And Ors. on 22 March, 2012

Triveni Shanker Saxena V. State of U.P. 1992 SCC(L&S) 440 and State of U.P. V. Prem Lata Misra (1994) 4 SCC 189 has held that in the former case, the termination order was simple order which did not cast any stigma and there were several adverse entries in the confidential reports. The termination was as per rules. In the latter case, the employees superiors complained that the employee was not regular in her work and was in the habit of leaving office during office hours. A simple order of termination was passed in terms of the order of her temporary appointment. There was no prior enquiry. In both these cases, the termination orders were upheld.
Allahabad High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 3 - A Kumar - Full Document

Ram Kumar vs State Of U.P. & Others on 4 May, 2012

In the case of Radhey Shyam Shukla Vs. State of U.P. and others (2008) 1 UPLBEC 177 Hon'ble the Supreme Court after considering the various case laws has held in the cases of Triveni Shanker Saxena V. State of U.P. 1992 SCC(L&S) 440 and State of U.P. V. Prem Lata Misra (1994) 4 SCC 189 has held that in the former case, the termination order was simple order which did not cast any stigma and there were several adverse entries in the confidential reports. The termination was as per rules. In the letter case, the employees superiors complained that the employee was not regular in her work and was in the habit of leaving office during office hours. A simple order of termination was passed in terms of the order of her temporary appointment. There was no prior enquiry. In both these cases, the termination orders were upheld.
Allahabad High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - A Kumar - Full Document

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

Kailash Narain Sirothia vs State Of U.P. And Others on 22 July, 2010

In the case of Radhey Shyam Shukla Vs. State of U.P. and others (2008) 1 UPLBEC 177 the Hon'ble Supreme Court after considering the various case laws has held in the cases of Triveni Shanker Saxena V. State of U.P. 1992 SCC(L&S) 440 and State of U.P. V. Prem Lata Misra (1994) 4 SCC 189 that in the former case, the termination order was simple order which did not cast any stigma and there were several adverse entries in the confidential reports. The termination was as per rules. In the letter case, the employees superiors complained that the employee was not regular in her work and was in the habit of leaving office during office hours. A simple order of termination was passed in terms of the order of her temporary appointment. There was no prior enquiry. In both these cases, the termination orders were upheld.
Allahabad High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 1 - A Kumar - Full Document

Mahendra And Another vs State Of U.P. on 8 April, 2016

44. Hence, the impugned judgement of conviction and sentence dated 18.10.2014 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No. 14, Jhansi in Sessions Trial No. 68 of 2012 (State vs Mahendra and another) and Sessions Trial No. 146 of 2013 (State vs Km. Lalita and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 246 of 2011, under sections 366, 376(g), IPC, PS Garautha, district Jhansi, is hereby set aside.
Allahabad High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - R Pandya - Full Document

Sompal vs District Judge Etah on 30 October, 2019

(1) SCC 524 and State of U.P. Vs. Prem Lata Misra 1994 (4) SCC 189, the order of termination simplicitor was passed in respect to temporary employees in exercise of statutory powers under U.P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of service) Rules, 1975 after being satisfied that the work and conduct of the temporary employee was not satisfactory. The Court emphasized that the termination is in accordance with the terms and conditions of service regulated by relevant service rules.
Allahabad High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 0 - S Agarwal - Full Document

Ratnesh Kumar Choudhary vs Indira Gandhi Inst. Of M.S. Patna . on 15 October, 2015

The High Court in the writ petition, placing reliance on the decisions rendered in State of U.P. vs. Kaushal Kishore Shukla3, Triveni Shankar Saxena vs. State of U.P. 4 and State of U.P. vs. Prem Lata Misra5, came to hold that the order of termination had not been founded on any misconduct, but 2 (1999) 2 SCC 21 3 (1991) 1 SCC 691 4 (1992) Supp (1) SCC 524 5 (1994) 4 SCC 189 14 on the other hand, the competent authority had found that the employee was not fit to be continued in service on account of unsatisfactory work and conduct. The High Court also observed that even if some ex-parte preliminary enquiry had been conducted or a disciplinary enquiry was initiated to inquire into some misconduct, it was the option of the competent authority to withdraw the disciplinary proceedings and take the action of termination of service under the terms of appointment and the same would not be by way of punishment. This Court after taking note of the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties posed the following question:-
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - D Misra - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next