Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.83 seconds)
Dharmesh Kanaiyalal Parsi vs Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation on 30 September, 2014 cites

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

In the case of Deepti Prakash Banerjee (supra), after referring to various decisions indicated as to when a simple order of termination is to be treated as "founded" on the allegations of misconduct and when complaints could be only as motive for passing such a simple order of termination. In para 21 of the said judgment a distinction is explained, thus:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 500 - M J Rao - Full Document

State Of Punjab And Others vs Sukhwinder Singh on 14 July, 2005

20. In the present case neither any formal departmental inquiry nor any preliminary fact-finding inquiry had been held and a simple order of discharge had been passed. The High Court has built an edifice on the basis of a statement made in the written statement that the respondent was habitual absentee during his short period of service and has concluded therefrom that it was his absence from duty that weighed in the mind of Senior Superintendent of Police as absence from duty is a misconduct. The High Court has further gone on to hold that there is direct nexus between the order of discharge of the respondent from service and his absence from duty and, therefore, the order discharging him from service will be viewed as punitive in nature calling for a regular inquiry under Rule 16.24 of the Rules.We are of the opinion that the High Court has gone completely wrong in drawing the inference that the order of discharge dated 16-3-1990 was, in fact, based upon the misconduct and was, therefore, punitive in nature, which should have been preceded by a regular departmental inquiry.There cannot be any doubt that the respondent was on probation having been appointed about eight months back. As observed in Ajit Singh and others etc. v. State of Punjab and another (supra) the period of probation gives time and opportunity to the employer to watch the work ability, efficiency, sincerity and competence of the servant and if he is found not suitable for the post, the master reserves a right to dispense with his service without anything more during or at the end of the prescribed period, which is styled as period of probation. The mere holding of preliminary inquiry where explanation is called from an employee would not make an otherwise innocuous order of discharge or termination of service punitive in nature.Therefore, the High Court was clearly in error in holding that the respondent's absence from duty was the foundation of the order, which necessitated an inquiry as envisaged under Rule 16.24 (ix) of the Rules."
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 153 - G P Mathur - Full Document

Pavanendra Narayan Verma vs Sanjay Gandhi P.G.I. Of Medical Sci. & ... on 5 November, 2001

In Pavanendra Narayan Verma v. Sanjay Gandhi PGI of Medical Sciences, this Court has explained at length the tests that would apply to determine if an order terminating the services of a probationer is stigmatic. On the facts of that case it was held that the opinion expressed in the termination order that the probationer's "work and conduct has not been found satisfactory"
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 367 - R Pal - Full Document
1