Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.21 seconds)
Smt. Charulataben M. Gohil vs Surendranagar Joint Municipality And ... on 17 August, 1982 cites

Shamsher Singh & Anr vs State Of Punjab on 23 August, 1974

After considering the aforesaid observations, in para 14, the Supreme Court observed that those observations are meant to cover those cases where, even though the probationer may have no right to continue in service, yet, the order terminating his services casts a stigma on his name. It was further observed that if, however, after going into the particular facts and circumstances of a case, the Court finds, as seemed to be the position in that case before the Supreme Court that the inquiry conducted and notices given were intended only to arrive at a finding on a desirability of continuing a person in service, and more serious action was not contemplated, it means that no stigma was intended to be cast.
Supreme Court of India Cites 110 - Cited by 317 - A N Ray - Full Document

State Of Maharashtra vs Veerappa R. Saboji And Anr on 6 September, 1979

18. The aforesaid observations get support from another decision of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Veerappa R. Saboji . That was a case of a Judicial Officer initially appointed on probation on 31-10-1960. The order of appointment clearly stated that the appointee was to be on probation for a period of two years from the date on which he took charge, and during that period his appointment was liable to be terminated without notice, and after the period of probation his services were liable to be terminated on one month's notice. This judicial officer continued in service upto 31-1-1972, i.e. for a period of about more than 11 years. By an order dated 15-12-1971 his services were terminated from 1-2-1972, mentioning that his appointment was still temporary and that his services were liable to be terminated on one month's notice and, therefore, he was informed that he would cease to be in service with effect from 1-2-1972. This order was challenged by the officer concerned before the Bombay High Court by a writ petition, which was allowed. The State of Maharashtra, therefore, went in appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court considered Rule 4(2)(iv) of the Bombay Judicial Service Recruitment Rules, 1956, which was to the following effect:
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 96 - N L Untwalia - Full Document

Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. vs P.S. Bhatt on 11 February, 1981

19. Again, the Supreme Court in Union of India v. P.S. Bhatt AIR 1981 Supreme Court 957, considered the case of a person appointed to a higher post on probation. That person was reverted to his original post by an order which cast no stigma. It was held that the order was not by way of punishment even if the abusive language used by the employee against the superior was the motive or the inducing factor for passing the order.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 32 - Full Document
1