State Of Punjab vs Dharam Singh on 2 February, 1968
The attention of the Court was not drawn to the decision of
the Constitution Bench in Dharam Singh's case and the long line of cases
which followed that decision.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.26 seconds)Smt. Beena Tiwari & Anr. Etc vs State Of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. Etc on 18 December, 1987
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents, contends that the
maximum period of probation extended upto 22.5.90 and that before that
date, the High Court had taken note of the charges served on the appellant
on 3.3.90 during the period of probation and the notes of inspection of the
appellant's court on 3.5.92, and that in view thereof, the Full Court
decided initially on 3.5.92, he was not fit for confirma-tion/promotion and
then decided on 30.4.93, 1st and 2nd May, 1993 that his services had to be
terminated on one month notice. As long as there was no order of
confirmation even after the expiry of the 4 year period, the appellant
could not be deemed to have been confirmed and must be deemed to be
continuing under probation. If he was continuing under probation even after
22.5.90, then his termination with one month salary on 8.11.93 was valid.
He relies upon Beena Tiwari v. State of M.P., [1988] Suppl. SCC 213 to say
that the powers of the High Court under Article 235 are not subject to
anything in the Rules.
Sukhbans Singh vs State Of Punjab on 6 April, 1962
Sukhbans
Singh's case was followed and it was stated that unless the order of
appointment or the rule said that at the end of the probationary period, if
no order was passed, the officer is to be deemed to have been confirmed,
the officer continued to be on probation.
State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Akbar Ali Khan on 9 March, 1966
Similar was the
position in the case before another Constitution Bench in State of U.P. v.
Akbar Ali Khan, [1966] 3 SCR 821. Here also the Court held that on
completion of 2 years of probation as per rules, the officer continued to
be a probationer until an order of confirmation was passed.
Kedar Nath Bahl vs The State Of Punjab And Ors. on 5 October, 1978
We may state that the facts in
Kedar Nath v. State of Punjab, [1974] 3 SCC 21 decided by a three Judge
Bench are also similar and the earlier rulings set out above were followed.
Dhanjibhai Ramjibhai vs State Of Gujarat on 22 January, 1985
In Dhamjibhai Ramjibhai v. State of Gujarat, [1985] 2 SCC 51, also the
period of probation fixed under the Rules was two years and there was also
provision for extension but no maximum was prescribed. The termination was
after the expiry of the period of 2 years of probation. A three Judge Bench
took the view that there could be no automatic confirmation at the end of
two years and that the termination after 2 years was valid.
Om Prakash Maurya vs U.P. Cooperative Sugar Factories ... on 9 May, 1986
This view
has been consistently followed in Om Prakash Maurya v. U.P. Coop. Sugar
Factories Federation, [1956] Suppl.
M.K. Agarwal vs Gurgaon Gramin Bank And Ors. on 20 November, 1987
SCC 95; M.K. Agarwal v. Gurgaon Gramin
Bank, [1987] Suppl.
State Of Gujarat vs Akhilesh C. Bhargav & Ors on 26 August, 1987
SCC 643 and State of Gujarat v. Akhilesh C. Bhargava,
[1987] 4 SCC 482 which are all cases in which a maximum period for
extension of probation was prescribed and termination after expiry of the
said period was held to be invalid inasmuch as the officer must be deemed
to have been confirmed.
Municipal Corporation, Raipur vs Ashok Kumar Misra on 16 April, 1991
It is also significant that in the case before us the effect of
the rule fixing a maximum period of probation is not whittled down by any
other provision in the rules such as the one contained in Samsher Singh's
case or in Ashok Kumar Mishra's case. Though a plea was raised that
termination of service could be effected by serving one month's notice or
paying salary in lieu thereof, there is no such provision in the order of
appointment nor was any rule relied upon for supporting such a contention.