K.Dhanasekaran vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 8 October, 2010
9.4 Further, the Supreme Court in the decision in Superintendent of Post Offices V. R.Valasina Babu (2007) 2 SCC 335 observed in paragraphs 14 and 15 as follows:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 66 (0.65 seconds)Sanjay vs Gujarat on 14 November, 2011
The
third case relied upon by Ms. Bhaya in case of Superintendent of
Post Offices and Others Vs. R. Valasina Babu, (2007) 2 SCC 335,
wherein the disciplinary proceedings were in fact initiated and it
was recorded that the caste certificate which was basis for
procuring employment itself had been revoked by the issuing
authority that is the Collector. That factom was very much there on
the record. In the instant case it is no where the case of the
respondent that whether the documents produced were established to
be obtained by fraud at least for holding proper inquiry.
Punjab Urban Planning And Development ... vs Karamjit Singh on 15 April, 2019
7. The question of holding disciplinary proceedings as envisaged
under Article 311 of the Constitution, or under any other
disciplinary rules did not arise in the present case since the
Respondent was admittedly not an “employee” of the
Appellant – Authority, and did not hold a civil post under the
State Government.6 He was merely a daily wager on the
muster rolls of the Appellant – Authority.
6The State of Bihar & Ors. v. Kirti Narayan Prasad, 2018 (15) SCALE 352; Superintendent of
Post Offices & Ors. v. R. Valasina Babu, (2007) 2 SCC 335.
Kusum Gurung vs State Of Sikkim And Ors on 3 June, 2013
37. Mr. Upadhyaya further submitted that once the caste certificate
on the basis of which the petitioner secure employment is cancelled, there
is no question of the petitioner being allowed to be continue in service and
for this proposition Mr. Upadhyaya relied on the judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Superintendent of Post Offices vs. R. Valasina
Babu: (2007) 2 SCC 335.
Mahipatsinh Ramsinh Sindha vs Gujarat State Electricity Corporation ... on 22 February, 2022
(v) Superintendent of Post Offices & Ors. vs. R.Valasina
Babu., reported in (2007) 3 SCC 335. Para 9 was relied on by
the learned counsel.
Dr. P.K. Seth vs The Secretary And Ors. on 8 October, 2007
52. Also in The Superintendent of Post Offices and Ors. v. R. Valasina Babu , Disciplinary Authority is precluded from taking into consideration subsequent events. In the present case, the Disciplinary Authority has on the basis of COS recommendations imposed a punishment of compulsory retirement upon the applicant without considering his contentions raised and without recording any tangible reason.
Chowgule And Co. vs Chowgule Employees Union And Anr. on 15 March, 2007
Similarly, the ratio of the judgments on which the reliance is placed by the learned Senior Counsel Mr. Rele on the question of subsequent events being taken into consideration in the case of Superintendent of Post Offices (supra) and in the case of Mukand Ltd. (supra) will also not apply, as discussed hereinabove. In the present case, subsequent events, even if they are not on record, would not alter or change the character of the order of discharge and what is required to be seen is whether the action was taken as a colourable exercise of power or with mala fide intention. Therefore, in these circumstances, what happened subsequently is immaterial. In the present case, the Company did not face any further strikes. It is possible that because of the efforts which were taken by the Trade Union and its members the workers were satisfied with the demands met by the Company and, therefore, they did not have any occasion to go on strike again. Therefore, it cannot be said that merely because subsequent functioning of the Company was smooth, the Company was justified in removing this workman. The ratio of those judgments which are relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner cannot apply to the facts of the present case and there is much substance in the submissions made by Mr. Pai, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 when he distinguished these judgments with reference to the facts of the present case.
Kaisaroddin S/O Jahiroddin vs The Divisional Caste Verification And ... on 31 March, 2008
19. We may also notice that ordinarily a person, who has obtained appointment on the basis of a false certificate, cannot retain the said benefit. See Bank of India and Anr. v. Avinath D. Mandivikar and Ors. (2005) 7 SCC 690, Ram Saran v. I.G. of Police, CRPF and Ors. 2006 (2) SCALE 131 and The Superintendent of Post Offices and Ors. v. R. Valasina Babu Civil Appeal No. 5868 of 2006, disposed of on 14.12.2006.
K. Jeganathan vs Union Of India (Uoi) Rep. By Director ... on 21 April, 2008
7.3. Further, the Supreme Court in the decision in Superintendent of Post Offices v. R. Valasina Babu observed in paragraphs 14 and 15 as follows:
State Of Maharashtra & Ors vs Sanjay K. Nimje on 16 January, 2007
We may also notice that ordinarily a person, who has obtained
appointment on the basis of a false certificate, cannot retain the said benefit.
[See Bank of India and Another v. Avinash D. Mandivikar and Others,
(2005) 7 SCC 690, Ram Saran v. I.G. of Police, CRPF & Ors. 2006 (2)
SCALE 131 and The Superintendent of Post Offices & Ors. v. R. Valasina
Babu, Civil Appeal No. 5868 of 2006, disposed of on 14.12.2006]
In a situation of this nature, whether the court will refuse to exercise
its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India or
not would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.