Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.31 seconds)Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 311 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Dr. Mrs. Sumati P. Shere vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 3 April, 1989
18. The next case cited (Dr. Mrs Sumati P. Shere v. Union of India and Ors. , according to the counsel, is on all fours with the facts of the present three cases. Dr. Sumati was an ad hoc appointee to a permanent post of Assistant Surgeon Grade-I in Naval Headquarters. After initial spells, she got further extensions and usual increments for three years but had been terminated from service thereafter for unsatisfactory performance without being informed about the defects or deficiency of the work. The Supreme Court, taking notice of the factual situation presented vis-`-vis, the stand of the respondents, had, in categorical terms, held that the order terminating the services of the applicant required to be set aside.
Babu Lal vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 16 January, 1991
At this point, he also adverted to a decision, namely, Babu Lal v. State of Haryana and Ors. . It was a case where an employee continuing on ad hoc basis without break for more than two years stood removed. He had been served with an order of termination, alleging that there was a criminal case to which he was a party although it had ended in acquittal at a later stage. The order was set aside, citing the principle that if a simple termination is found to be a camouflage for punitive action, the order requires to be set aside.
Union Of India & Ors vs Jayakumar Parida on 27 November, 1995
In Union of India and Ors. v. Jayakumar Parida , counsel submits, that the Supreme Court had intervened finding that although the termination was in exercise of contractual powers, it was found as having originated because of a report that the applicant had produced a false income certificate. But without a due process of enquiry, on the strength of contractual terms, a termination simpliciter could not have validly been issued, when full facts stood revealed.
S.K. Verma And Ors. vs State Of Punjab And Ors. on 19 May, 1978
27. The decisions cited by the respondents in S.K. Verma and Satish Chandra Anand (supra) might not be relevant here since the discrimination is not vis-`-vis any well defined groups, because a few among persons identically situated are picked up for harsh treatment.
Satish Chandra Anand vs The Union Of India on 13 March, 1953
21. Reference was next made to Satish Chandra Anand v. The Union of India . The Court had held that in the matter of termination of contractual service by notice, Article 16 (1) was inapplicable since there was no compulsion, the counsel points out, as observed by the Supreme Court, for the applicant to enter into a contract he did. Having accepted the offer, he should not have gone and contended that the terms were not acceptable to him, on a later stage.
Radhey Shyam Gupta vs U.P. State Agro Industries Corporation ... on 15 December, 1998
To this effect, he also relied on Radhey Shyam Gupta v. U.P. State Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. and Anr. . The issue was whether the spadework done could have been justifiable. An allegation of bribe was there as against the petitioner therein and there was a recommendation for termination but this was done behind the back of the employee. The issue was whether the termination was founded on this allegation or whether it constituted only a motive for initiating certain steps, which ultimately led to termination of service. Court had held that in certain cases of temporary servants and probationers, when ex parte enquiry had been held, it cannot be termed punitive, merely because the principles of natural justice had not been followed. It was not for the Tribunal, the Court observed, to go behind the order and look into the proceedings, the antecedents and the like circumstances, which culminated in the order of termination.
Jagdish Mitter vs Union Of India on 20 September, 1963
14. Mr. Khurana submits that it is now on record as an admission that the impugned orders have come to be passed in the backdrop of certain alleged undesirable conduct that is exhibited by the applicants. Necessarily, the corollary is that if they were not 'guilty of such indiscretion' there was no possibility that their contract might not have been renewed. But the principal submission, as has been referred to earlier, was that the fundamental rights of the applicants have been interfered with. If we go by the terms of the order of termination, he alleges that it is absolute discrimination per se. When hundreds of Medical Officers, who had joined later to the applicants and far greater number of officers who had joined earlier, who had the same terms and conditions of appointment, were continuing, and their renewal was a matter of course, and taking notice of the history that ad hoc employees were manning permanent posts, counsel points out, to pin point three of the doctors as not worthy of such a renewal, by itself, and without anything else, could be characterized as invidious discrimination. They had the legitimate expectation, to get the contract renewed appropriately, especially at a time, when steps were in the final stage for absorbing all such similarly situated persons, even at certain concession and relaxation. The termination was, therefore, uncharitable and when it specially brought about a calamity so as to deny them a benefit of regular employment which otherwise might have naturally followed, it was calculated with venom and requires to be denounced. Perhaps it revealed a sinister motive to wreck vengeance, and a method seems to be conceived, which otherwise would not have been possible to be carried out, in a straightforward manner. With reference to the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in Jagdish Mitter v. The Union of India it is submitted that a termination simpliciter of a temporary servant stating that he was found undesirable to be retained in Government servant, in fact, amount to an order of dismissal and it also amounted to violation of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India.