Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.35 seconds)The Oil And Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959
Section 12 in The Oil And Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959 [Entire Act]
Ranendra Chandra Banerjee vs Union Of India on 18 February, 1963
In Ranendra Chandra v. Union of India, AIR 1963 SC 1552 where R. 55-B came up for consideration before the Supreme Court the contention urged was that before an action is taken under R. 55-B to terminate the employment of the probationer the procedure prescribed by Rule 55 of the said rules was required to be followed. Their Lordships said:
The General Manager, Southern Railway vs Rangachari on 28 April, 1961
Art 16 of the Consitution to which Mr. Daru invited my attention makes a distinction between employment and appointment, and the scope of the expression employment as used in that Article has been explained by the Supreme Court in General Manager S. Rly v. Rangachari, AIR 1962 SC 36. It is obvious that the word 'employment' covers a much larger field in matter of conditions of service, the right to promotion etc., than the word 'appointment.' Therefore, looking at the expression 'employment' both in its ordinary meaning and the meaning as derived from the language used in other rules it would be right to construe it as meaning the state of being employed or as referring to the existence of employer and employee relationship. The ground on which termiantion of the employment can be made, it will be noticed, in any specific fault or unsuitability for the post. The rule when enacted was obvisouly meant to be complementary to the explanation to Rules 49 of the 1930 Rules, just as Rules 55 and 55-A are substantially complementary to the main part of the said Rule 49. These considerations go to indicate that the rule is concerned with the cessser of employment in Government service and not with cesser of employment in a particular post. This construction gets support from R. 13 of the 1957 Rules. Rule 55-B must now be read along with the 1957 Rules and the construction must harmonise with these rules. Now Rule 13 of the 1957 Rules lays down the penalties which may for good and sufficient reasons be imposed on a Government servant. Three of the penalties are reduction to a lower service, grade or post, removal from service and dismissal from service. There is an explanation setting out the situations under which the action would not amount ot a penalty within the meaning of that rule. Three of the situations which are set out in Cls (iv), (v)and (viii) are as under:-
Raja Ram vs State on 21 December, 1956
Sub-rule (3) of Rule 55 as in force in the State of Uttar Pradesh is set out in Raja Ram v. State, AIR 1958 All 141. It reads as under:-
Damodar Sinha vs Land Reforms Commissioner, U.P. And ... on 23 December, 1958
14. Counsel on neither side has been able to invite my attention to any ruling relating to Rule 55-B in which the expression 'to terminate the employment' has been construed but Mr. Daru invited my attention to two rulings of the Allahabad High Court namely Damodar Sinha v. Land Reforms Commr., AIR 1959 All 437 and State of U.P. v. Ansar Hussain, AIR 1964 All 346. In both these cases the rule which came up for considertaion was Rule 55(3) of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules applicable to the Government Servants in the State ofUttar Pradesh. It is not clear what the main part of the said Rule 55(3) was ; presumably it was the same as Rule 55 of the 1930 Rules.
State Of U.P. vs Ansar Husain on 12 November, 1963
14. Counsel on neither side has been able to invite my attention to any ruling relating to Rule 55-B in which the expression 'to terminate the employment' has been construed but Mr. Daru invited my attention to two rulings of the Allahabad High Court namely Damodar Sinha v. Land Reforms Commr., AIR 1959 All 437 and State of U.P. v. Ansar Hussain, AIR 1964 All 346. In both these cases the rule which came up for considertaion was Rule 55(3) of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules applicable to the Government Servants in the State ofUttar Pradesh. It is not clear what the main part of the said Rule 55(3) was ; presumably it was the same as Rule 55 of the 1930 Rules.
1