cites: 80042871 doctypes: judgments

Anoop Jaiswal vs Government Of India & Anr on 24 January, 1984

21. We are afraid, we cannot accept this contention of learned counsel for the respondents, in view of ratio of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case Anoop Jaiswal Vs. Government of India and Another (1984) 2 SCC 369 wherein it was ruled that even in case of a probationer, court can go beyond the formal order of discharge to find the real cause of action. Simple order of discharge of probationer on ground of unsuitability passed before his completion of the probation period, which is based on report/recommendation of the concerned authority, indicating commission of alleged misconduct by the probationer, then order is punitive in nature, which in the absence of any proper enquiry amounted to violation of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India.

Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 303 - E S Venkataramiah - Full Document

Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd vs Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha on 19 November, 1979

24. An identical question came to be decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Ratnesh Kumar Choudhary Vs. Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna, 13 OA No.100/4307/2014 Bihar and Others JT 2015 (9) 363, wherein having considered the 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 Centre for Basic Sciences (1999) 3 SCC 60, Pavanendra Narayan Verma 14 OA No.100/4307/2014 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 simpliciter, 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.

Supreme Court of India Cites 60 - Cited by 777 - V R Iyer - Full Document

Commissioner, Food And Civil Supplies vs Prakash C. Saxena on 5 May, 1994

24. An identical question came to be decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Ratnesh Kumar Choudhary Vs. Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna, 13 OA No.100/4307/2014 Bihar and Others JT 2015 (9) 363, wherein having considered the 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 Centre for Basic Sciences (1999) 3 SCC 60, Pavanendra Narayan Verma 14 OA No.100/4307/2014 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 simpliciter, 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.

Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 56 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Dipti Prakash Banerjee vs Satvendra Nath Bose National Centre For ... on 10 February, 1999

24. An identical question came to be decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Ratnesh Kumar Choudhary Vs. Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna, 13 OA No.100/4307/2014 Bihar and Others JT 2015 (9) 363, wherein having considered the 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 Centre for Basic Sciences (1999) 3 SCC 60, Pavanendra Narayan Verma 14 OA No.100/4307/2014 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 simpliciter, 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.

Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 500 - M J Rao - Full Document

Triveni Shankar Saxena vs State Of U.P. And Others on 20 December, 1991

24. An identical question came to be decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Ratnesh Kumar Choudhary Vs. Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna, 13 OA No.100/4307/2014 Bihar and Others JT 2015 (9) 363, wherein having considered the 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 Centre for Basic Sciences (1999) 3 SCC 60, Pavanendra Narayan Verma 14 OA No.100/4307/2014 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 simpliciter, 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.

Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 151 - S R Pandian - Full Document

State Of U.P. And Another State Of U.P. ... vs Km. Prem Lata Misra And Others on 21 April, 1994

24. An identical question came to be decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Ratnesh Kumar Choudhary Vs. Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna, 13 OA No.100/4307/2014 Bihar and Others JT 2015 (9) 363, wherein having considered the 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 Centre for Basic Sciences (1999) 3 SCC 60, Pavanendra Narayan Verma 14 OA No.100/4307/2014 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 simpliciter, 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.

Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 57 - Full Document

Parshotam Lal Dhingra vs Union Of India on 1 November, 1957

24. An identical question came to be decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Ratnesh Kumar Choudhary Vs. Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna, 13 OA No.100/4307/2014 Bihar and Others JT 2015 (9) 363, wherein having considered the 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 Centre for Basic Sciences (1999) 3 SCC 60, Pavanendra Narayan Verma 14 OA No.100/4307/2014 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 simpliciter, 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.

Supreme Court of India Cites 46 - Cited by 809 - Full Document

Union Of India & Ors vs Mahaveer C.Singvi on 29 July, 2010

24. An identical question came to be decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Ratnesh Kumar Choudhary Vs. Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna, 13 OA No.100/4307/2014 Bihar and Others JT 2015 (9) 363, wherein having considered the 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 Centre for Basic Sciences (1999) 3 SCC 60, Pavanendra Narayan Verma 14 OA No.100/4307/2014 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 simpliciter, 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.

Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 100 - A Kabir - Full Document

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

24. An identical question came to be decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Ratnesh Kumar Choudhary Vs. Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna, 13 OA No.100/4307/2014 Bihar and Others JT 2015 (9) 363, wherein having considered the 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 Centre for Basic Sciences (1999) 3 SCC 60, Pavanendra Narayan Verma 14 OA No.100/4307/2014 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 simpliciter, 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.

Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 80 - D Misra - Full Document

Radhey Shyam Gupta vs U.P. State Agro Industries Corporation ... on 15 December, 1998

24. An identical question came to be decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Ratnesh Kumar Choudhary Vs. Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna, 13 OA No.100/4307/2014 Bihar and Others JT 2015 (9) 363, wherein having considered the 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 Centre for Basic Sciences (1999) 3 SCC 60, Pavanendra Narayan Verma 14 OA No.100/4307/2014 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 simpliciter, 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.

Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 126 - M J Rao - Full Document

Search Results Page

Refine Search

Search Results