Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.22 seconds)Union Of India & Ors vs M. Bhaskaran on 30 October, 1995
In Union of India and Ors. v. M. Bhaskaran (1995) (Suppl.) 4 SCC 100, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Ors vs Ram Ratan Yadav on 26 February, 2003
In Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Ram Ratan Yadav ; and A.P. Public Service Commission v. Koneti Venkateswarulu , the Hon'ble Supreme Court examined a similar case, wherein, the employment had been obtained by suppressing the material fact that criminal proceedings were pending against him at the time of appointment. The Court rejected the plea taken by the employee that the From was printed in English and he did not have good knowledge of that, and therefore, could not understand as what information was sought. The Apex Court held that as he did not furnish the information correctly at the time of filling up the Form, the subsequent withdrawal of the criminal case registered against him or the nature of offences were immaterial. The requirement of filling column Nos. 12 and 13 of the Attestation Form was for the purpose of verification of the character and antecedents of the employee as on the date of filling in the Attestation Form. Suppression of material information and making a false statement has a clear bearing on the character and antecedent of the employee in relation to his continuance in service.
A.P. Public Service Commission vs Koneti Venkateswarulu & Ors on 30 August, 2005
In Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Ram Ratan Yadav ; and A.P. Public Service Commission v. Koneti Venkateswarulu , the Hon'ble Supreme Court examined a similar case, wherein, the employment had been obtained by suppressing the material fact that criminal proceedings were pending against him at the time of appointment. The Court rejected the plea taken by the employee that the From was printed in English and he did not have good knowledge of that, and therefore, could not understand as what information was sought. The Apex Court held that as he did not furnish the information correctly at the time of filling up the Form, the subsequent withdrawal of the criminal case registered against him or the nature of offences were immaterial. The requirement of filling column Nos. 12 and 13 of the Attestation Form was for the purpose of verification of the character and antecedents of the employee as on the date of filling in the Attestation Form. Suppression of material information and making a false statement has a clear bearing on the character and antecedent of the employee in relation to his continuance in service.
Capt.M. Paul Anthony vs Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Anr on 30 March, 1999
9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of bCaptain P. Paul Anthoney v. Bharat Gold Mines and Anr. has held that proceedings in a criminal case and the departmental proceedings can proceed simultaneously with a little exception. The basis of this proposition is that the proceedings in a criminal case and the departmental proceedings operate in distinct and different jurisdictional areas. In the departmental proceedings, where the charge relating to misconduct is being investigated, the factors operating in the mind of disciplinary authority may be many such as enforcement of discipline or to investigate the level of integrity of the delinquent employee. The standard of proof required in departmental proceedings is also different then required in a' criminal case, The little exception may be where the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on the same set of facts and the evidence and the proceedings are virtually common without there being any variance.
Ramesh Prasad Patel Son Of Sri Bhagwan ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) Through The Chief Of ... on 18 April, 2006
14. On the other hand Sri K.C. Sinha, Additional Solicitor General has placed very heavy reliance upon a division bench judgment of the Allahabad High Court reported in Ramesh Prasad Patel v. Union of India and Ors. 2006 (3) ESC 1669. The facts of this case squarely applies to the present case. In this case also the delinquent employee had obtained employment in Army by furnishing false declaration at the time of his enrollment, to the effect that no criminal case was pending against him and on verification it was found to be incorrect and as such was dismissed from service. The Division Bench of this Court considering the entire case law on the subject held that as the petitioner has suppressed material information and had made a false statement in seeking the employment, he cannot be permitted to reap the fruits of his own mistakes and as such his dismissal from service was upheld. The High Court further held that in cases of misrepresentation or making a false declaration, amounts to playing fraud and as such even opportunity of hearing is not required to be given and it would be a futile exercise in view of the admitted fact that the declaration was false.
Smt. Shrisht Dhawan vs M/S. Shaw Brothers on 13 December, 1991
In Smt. Shrisht Dhawan v. Shaw Bros. , it has been held as under:
Ram Bachan Yadav vs Commandant, P.A.C. 20Th Batallion And ... on 25 September, 1997
In support of this he has placed reliance in a decision of the Allahabad High Court reported in Ram Bechan Yadav v. Commandant P.A.C. 20th Bn. Azamgarh 1998 (1) UPLBEC 730.
Regional Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C, Etawah ... vs Hoti Lal & Anr on 11 February, 2003
16. The above submission is not tenable in as much as in the present case the order of dismissal from service was passed against the petitioner after hearing him on the quantum of punishment also. The authority after considering the gravity and misconduct of the petitioner, and the fact that he had not been confirmed in service has come to the conclusion that he is not a fit person to be retained in service. The appointing or disciplinary authority in such circumstances is required to consider various factors such as the enforcement of discipline, level of integrity of the delinquent employee, the nature of misconduct and, therefore, if the authority finds that the delinquent employee is not a person fit enough to be kept in service, the punishment of dismissal cannot be said to be disproportionate to the charge more particularly when the employee has not been confirmed and is in temporary service. The Apex Court in case of Regional Manager, UPSRTC v. Hoti Lal following its earlier decisions in State of Orissa v. Bidyabhushan Mohapatra and Union of India v. Sardar Bhadur held that the High Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has no power to review the penalty imposed and to substitute its own punishment and the order of the disciplinary authority is to be treated as final unless it shocks the very conscience of the Court.
State Of Orissa vs Bidyabhujshan Mohapatra on 19 October, 1962
16. The above submission is not tenable in as much as in the present case the order of dismissal from service was passed against the petitioner after hearing him on the quantum of punishment also. The authority after considering the gravity and misconduct of the petitioner, and the fact that he had not been confirmed in service has come to the conclusion that he is not a fit person to be retained in service. The appointing or disciplinary authority in such circumstances is required to consider various factors such as the enforcement of discipline, level of integrity of the delinquent employee, the nature of misconduct and, therefore, if the authority finds that the delinquent employee is not a person fit enough to be kept in service, the punishment of dismissal cannot be said to be disproportionate to the charge more particularly when the employee has not been confirmed and is in temporary service. The Apex Court in case of Regional Manager, UPSRTC v. Hoti Lal following its earlier decisions in State of Orissa v. Bidyabhushan Mohapatra and Union of India v. Sardar Bhadur held that the High Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has no power to review the penalty imposed and to substitute its own punishment and the order of the disciplinary authority is to be treated as final unless it shocks the very conscience of the Court.