Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.47 seconds)
Union Of India & Anr vs Major Bahadur Singh on 22 November, 2005 cites

U.P. Jal Nigam & Others vs Prabhat Chandra Jain & Others on 31 January, 1996

As there was no averment that parameters did not exist in the counter filed, present appellants did not touch on that aspect. But the High Court overlooked this vital aspect and proceeded on the footing that no parameters existed. On that ground alone according to learned counsel for the appellants the High Court's judgment is vulnerable. It is also pointed out that the High Court relied on the decision of this Court in U.P. Jal Nigam and Ors. v. Prabhat Chandra Jain and others (1996 (2) SCC 363) to buttress its view. According to learned counsel for the appellants, bare reading of the said judgment clearly indicates that it was only applicable in the case of U.P. Jal Nigam and has no application to the facts of the present case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 245 - M M Punchhi - Full Document

State Of U.P vs Yamuna Shanker Misra & Anr on 21 February, 1997

Similarly, the decision in State of U.P. v. Yamuna Shanker Misra and Anr. (1997 (4) SCC 7) was rendered on a different set of facts and has no application to the facts of the present case. The office memorandum on which the High Court relied upon i.e. the letter/circular dated 21st August, 1989 does not in any way help the respondent, and in fact goes against him. It only lays down the modalities to be followed when an officer is found to be not up to mark. The performance counseling is a continuous process and the concerned employee has to be given appropriate guidance for an improvement as and when a weakness is noticed. Only when the officer fails to show the desired improvement the adverse/advisory remarks can be included in the confidential report.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 247 - Full Document
1