Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (1.62 seconds)
Documents citing Union Territory Of Tripura,Agartala vs Gopal Chander Dutta Choudhury on 25 September, 1962

Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. vs Rabindranath Mazumdar on 18 August, 1965

8. On behalf of the appellants the attention of the Court was also drawn to another decision of the Supreme Court reported in (1963) Supp (1) SCR 266, Union Territory of Tripura, Agartala v. Gopal Chander. In this case the respondent was appointed as a Constable in the Tripura Police Force. The employment was temporary. In accordance with Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1949, his services were terminated by giving one month's notice. The respondent appealed. The Appellate authority wrote to him that as he was an exconvict for theft, nothing could be done for him. The respondent filed a writ petition challenging the order of termination. The Judicial Commissioner held that the order was one of dismissal as punishment on the ground that the respondent was an ex-convict, and as no reasonable opportunity was given to the respondent to show cause, the protection of Article 311 was not afforded to him and the order terminating the respondent's employment was invalid. It was held by the Supreme Court that the respondent had not been dismissed by way of punishment and there was no violation of Article 311(2). The order in terms merely terminated the service of the respondent; there was nothing in it to suggest that the termination was on account of the respondent being an ex-convict. It could not be, in the circumstances of this case, inferred that an order of dismissal was camouflaged as an order of termination and it could not be assumed that an order, ex-facie one of termination, was intended to be one of dismissal. The onus to prove such intention lay upon the employee.
Calcutta High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Collector Of Central Excise, Hyderabad vs N. Venkata Rao on 31 March, 1964

25. Another judgment of the Supreme Court which is in the same trend of thought is Union Territory of Tripura v. Gopal Chandra, . In that case, since they found that there was no ground for inferring that the Superintendent of Police was camouflaging an order of termination of employment in the exercise of the authority under the relevant rules, it could not be assumed that an order ex facie one of termination of employment of temporary employee was intended to be one of dismissal. They further held that the onus was upon the employee to show that the intention of the authority terminating the employment was to punish him in the guise of terminating the temporary employment or reverting an officiating higher post.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 10 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

R.C. Roy vs Union Of India And Ors. on 4 March, 1971

In Union Territory of Tripura v. Gopal Chandre Dutta Choudhury, a police constable was discharged by the Superintendent of Police under Rule 5 of the Central Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1949 which correspondents to rule 108 (5) in the present case. His appeal to the Chief Commissioner was rejected on the ground that he was an ex-convict for theft. It was argued for him that the subsequent observation of the Chief Commissioner showed the real reason for the termination of his services. As there was nothing on record to show that he was an ex-convict for theft, this contention was repelled by the Supreme Court. At p. 271 (of SCR) = (at p. 604 of AIR) the court also distinguished between the order of termination passed by the order of termination passed by the Superintendent of Police and the later order passed by the Chief Commissioner which were two different authorities. In the present case also the remarks from confidential reports to the petitioner the words "carelessness and negligence" were used against the petitioner does not mean that his discharge itself was for inefficiency due to willful negligence. Secondly the communication of these adverse remarks was by the Inspector General of Police and the refusal of traveling allowance was by the Inspector General of Police and the refusal of traveling allowance was by the Commandant. Both of them were distinct form the Central Government which terminated the services of the petitioner.
Delhi High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

D. Gobalousamy vs The Union Territory Of Pondicherry, By ... on 6 April, 1966

36. Article 309 is found in Part XIV under the heading Services under the Union and the States. Before the seventh amendment, Article 308 contained a definition, that the expression State in this part meant a State specified in Part A or Part B of the First Schedule but after the seventh amendment, the expression State is defined, as not to include the State of Jammu and Kashmir. The reason for this modification was presumably because, prior to the seventh amendment Fart C States were administered by the Union, and such States had to be excluded from the connotation of the word State in Part XIV, but after the amendment, Part C States were abolished, and the new classification of Union territories was included in the definition in Article I of the Constitution. But it is important to remember that even before the amendment, the protection conferred under Article 311 of the Constitution, which is also found in Part XIV, was available to members of services under the Government in Part C States. It is sufficient to refer to Union Territory, Tripura v. Gopal Chandra , where, though the point was not specifically discussed, it was held by implication, that the protection under Article 311 of the Constitution was available to Government servants employed in Part C States. If the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is to be upheld, it will follow that after the seventh amendment, when the Union territories have come to take the place of Part C States, such protection would be automatically lost. I do not think that such a result was intended or was unconsciously allowed to follow, when the Constitution was amended by the seventh amendment. The more rational view is to treat Government employees in Union territories, as persons employed in connection with the affairs of the Union. In this context, there is a clear distinction between the affairs of the Central Government and the affairs of the Union.
Madras High Court Cites 55 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Scientific Adviser To The Ministry Of ... vs S. Daniel And Ors. Etc. Etc on 10 April, 1990

This plea was upheld by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Danial's case [1980] 2 SLR 477 and, following it, in the other cases before us. A similar view has been taken in the Delhi High Court in Murishwar v. Union, [1976] Service Law Cases 82 in Union v. Tarlok Singh, cited there- in, and by the Calcutta High Court in Union v. Choudhury, [1976] 2 SLR 819.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 18 - K N Saikia - Full Document
1   2 Next