Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.42 seconds)Parshotam Lal Dhingra vs Union Of India on 1 November, 1957
Officiating and temporary Government servants are also
entitled to the protection of article 311 as permanent
Government servants if the Government takes action against
them by meting out one of the punishments, i.e. dismissal,
removal or reduction in rank [see Parshotam Lal Dhingra v.
Union of India, (supra), Champaklal Chimanlal Shah v. Union
of India(3) and Appar Apar Singh v. The State of Punjab &
Ors. (4) ].
Champaklal Chimanlal Shah vs The Union Of India on 23 October, 1963
Officiating and temporary Government servants are also
entitled to the protection of article 311 as permanent
Government servants if the Government takes action against
them by meting out one of the punishments, i.e. dismissal,
removal or reduction in rank [see Parshotam Lal Dhingra v.
Union of India, (supra), Champaklal Chimanlal Shah v. Union
of India(3) and Appar Apar Singh v. The State of Punjab &
Ors. (4) ].
Appar Apar Singh vs The State Of Punjab And Others on 3 December, 1970
Officiating and temporary Government servants are also
entitled to the protection of article 311 as permanent
Government servants if the Government takes action against
them by meting out one of the punishments, i.e. dismissal,
removal or reduction in rank [see Parshotam Lal Dhingra v.
Union of India, (supra), Champaklal Chimanlal Shah v. Union
of India(3) and Appar Apar Singh v. The State of Punjab &
Ors. (4) ].
State Of Bihar & Ors vs Shiva Bhikshuk Mishra on 14 September, 1970
The test for attracting article 311(2) of the Constitution
is whether the misconduct or negligence is a mere motive
for-the order of reversion or termination of service or
whether it is the very foundation of the order of
termination of service of the temporary employee. The form
of the order, however, is not conclusive of its true nature.
The entirety of circumstances preceding or attendant on the
impugned order must be examined by the court and the
overriding test will always be whether the misconduct is a
mere motive or is the very foundation of the order [see
State of Bihar & Ors. v. Shiva Bhikshuk Mishra(5)].
State Of Punjab & Anr vs Shri Sukh Raj Bahadur on 22 February, 1968
In the case of State of Punjab v. Shri Sukh Rai Bahadur(6)
this Court enunciated the following propositions which have
to be borne in mind :
Union Of India, And Anr. vs R.S. Dhaba, Income-Tax Officer, ... on 7 April, 1969
It cannot, in our opinion, be inferred therefrom that
the reversion of the appellant was by way of punishment.
All that can be said is that the contemplated enquiry into
the charges of corruption against the appellant provided the
motive for the reversion of the appellant. The existence of
such a motive cannot, in our opinion, vitiate the order for
the reversion of the appellant. It may be taken to be well
settled that even though misconduct, negligence,
inefficiency or other disqualifications may be the motive or
the inducing factor which influence the Government to take
action under the express or implied terms of the contract of
employment or under the statutory rule, nevertheless if a
right exists, under the contract or the rules to terminate
the services the
759
motive operating on the mind of the Government is wholly
immaterial [see Union of India v. R. S. Dhaba(l).]. The same
rule would hold good if the order passed is not for
termination of service but for reversion of a Government
servant from a higher post to a lower post which he holds in
a substantive capacity.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Union Of India And Another vs Gajendra Singh, Etc., Etc on 7 March, 1972
Appointment to a post on an officiating basis is, from the
nature of employment, itself of a transitory character and
in the absence of any contract or specific rule regulating
the conditions of service to the contrary, the implied term
of such an appointment is that it is terminable at any time.
The Government servant so appointed acquires no right to the
post. But if the order entails or provides for forfeiture
of his pay or allowance or the loss of his seniority in the
substantive rank or the stoppage or postponement of his
future chances of promotion, then that circumstance may
indicate that though, in form, the Government had purported
to exercise its undoubted right to terminate the employment,
in truth and reality, the termination was by way of penalty
[see Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India (1) and Union
of India & Anr. v. Gajendra Singh, etc. etc.(2)].
1