Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.32 seconds)Dipti Prakash Banerjee vs Satvendra Nath Bose National Centre For ... on 10 February, 1999
This view of ours is
further fortified by the decision of the Hon'ble
20
OA No.1835/2023
Supreme Court in Dipti Prakash Banerjee v.
Satvendra Nath Bose National Centre for Basic
Sc., Calcutta, (1999) 3 SCC 60, where their
Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court held as
follows:
Radhey Shyam Gupta vs U.P. State Agro Industries Corporation ... on 15 December, 1998
3.3 Mr. Gupta further referring to Office
Memorandum dated 11th March, 2019 issued by
Ministry of Personnel, PG & Pensions, Department
of Personnel and Training, submitted that under
no circumstances the period of probation can be
extended to the double of the original period of
probation and hence the applicant is required to be
declared confirmed for all purpose. Concluding
his arguments, Mr. Gupta submitted that the case
of the applicant is squarely covered by the decision
8
OA No.1835/2023
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Radhey Shyam Gupta v. U.P. State Agro
Industries Ltd. & Anr., (1999) 2 SCC 2.
3.4 In view of the above, the learned counsel
submitted that since the termination of the
applicant is based on his specific misconduct, it
cannot be termed as an order simpliciter. The
impugned orders, are, therefore, punitive and
stigmatic, as passed without the protection of
Article 311 and hence the veil is not required to be
lifted. As such, the impugned order are required to
be quashed and set aside by allowing the instant
OA.
Dr. L.P. Agarwal vs Union Of India And Ors on 21 July, 1992
In Dr. L.P. Agarwal v. Union of India
and Others, (1992) 3 SCC 526, Petitioner was Director,
AIIMS, who had been appointed for a period of 5 years
or till he attained the age of 62 years, whichever was
earlier, the Supreme Court examined the meaning and
connotation of the term 'tenure' and observed that
tenure is a term during which an office is held. It is a
condition of holding office and once a person is
appointed to a tenure post, his appointment begins
when he joins and comes to an end on completion of
the tenure, unless curtailed on 'justifiable' grounds.
Such a person does not superannuate, he only goes
out of office on completion of his tenure and thus, the
question of prematurely retiring him does not arise.
Vijayakumaran C.P.V vs Central University Of Kerala on 28 January, 2020
29. Another judgment, which needs a mention and is
close on facts, is in the case of Dr. Vijayakumaran
C.P.V. v. Central University of Kerala and Others,
(2020) 12 SCC 426, wherein the Supreme Court
observed that the termination order was issued in the
backdrop of Internal Complaints Committee Report
and going by the terms and tenor of the order, it was
incomprehensible to construe such an order to be an
order simplicitor when the report of the Inquiry
Committee was the foundation. The Supreme Court
also reiterated the position of law that the material
which amounts to stigma need not be contained in the
termination order and may be in any document
referred to therein, which reference will inevitably effect
the future prospects of the incumbent and if so, the
order must be construed as an ex facie stigmatic order
of termination."
Nirmala Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh 40 Wps/432/2017 ... on 18 May, 2018
7. Further the Hon'ble High Court of
Allahabad in Vijay Raj v. Union of India, Writ A.
No.63968 of 2005, decided on 05.03.2020, has
considered the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in a catena of decisions, including in a few
Constitution Bench judgements and has ruled in
paras 61 and 62 as follows:
Madan Gopal vs State Of Punjab on 27 August, 1962
In this area, as pointed out by Shah,J.
(as he then was) in Madan Gopal vs. State of
Punjab [AIR 1963 S.C. 531] there is no difference
between cases where services of a temporary
employee are terminated and where a probationer is
discharged.
Parshotam Lal Dhingra vs Union Of India on 1 November, 1957
This very question was gone into
recently in R.S.Gupta vs. U.P.State Agro Industries
Corporation Ltd. & Anr. [J.T. 1998 (8) S.C. 585] and
reference was made to the development of the law
from time to time starting from Purshottam Lal
Dhingra vs. Union of India [1958 SCR 828], to the
concept of `purpose of inquiry' introduced by
Shah,J. (as he then was) in State of Orissa vs. Ram
Narayan Das [1961 (1) SCR 606] and to the seven
Bench decision in Samsher Singh vs. State of Punjab
[1974 (2) SCC 831] and to post Samsher Singh case-
law. This Court had occasion to make a detailed
examination of what is the `motive' and what is the
`foundation' on which innocuous order is based.
The State Of Orissa And Another vs Ram Narayan Das on 8 September, 1960
This very question was gone into
recently in R.S.Gupta vs. U.P.State Agro Industries
Corporation Ltd. & Anr. [J.T. 1998 (8) S.C. 585] and
reference was made to the development of the law
from time to time starting from Purshottam Lal
Dhingra vs. Union of India [1958 SCR 828], to the
concept of `purpose of inquiry' introduced by
Shah,J. (as he then was) in State of Orissa vs. Ram
Narayan Das [1961 (1) SCR 606] and to the seven
Bench decision in Samsher Singh vs. State of Punjab
[1974 (2) SCC 831] and to post Samsher Singh case-
law. This Court had occasion to make a detailed
examination of what is the `motive' and what is the
`foundation' on which innocuous order is based.
Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd vs Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha on 19 November, 1979
This Court in that connection referred to the
principles laid down by Krishna Iyer,J. in Gujarat
Steel Tube vs. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor
Sangh [1980 (2) SCC 593]. As to `foundation', it was
said by Krishna Iyer,J. as follows: