Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.23 seconds)State Of U.P vs Shatrughan Lal & Anr on 30 July, 1998
His Lordship again proceeded to observe that "real motive behind the removal is irrelevant and the holding of an enquiry leaving an indelible stain as a consequence alone attracts Article 311(2). What is decisive means whether the order is by way of punishment, in the light of the tests laid down in Purshottam Lal Dhingra's case AIR 1958 SC 36". (para 158).
Om Prakash Goel vs Himachal Pradesh Tourism Development ... on 6 May, 1991
(para 4)
In the case of Om Prakash Goel (supra), regular charge-sheet was served along with documents and the delinquent employee has replied to the charge-sheet. Thereafter, the order of termination was passed without referring the charge-sheet. Hon'ble Supreme Court treated it as an order of dismissal and quashed the termination order.
Radhey Shyam Gupta vs U.P. State Agro Industries Corporation ... on 15 December, 1998
In a case, reported in (1999)2 SCC 21 Radhey Shyam Gupta versus U.P. State Agro Industries Corporation Limited and another, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:
Dipti Prakash Banerjee vs Satvendra Nath Bose National Centre For ... on 10 February, 1999
In the case of Dipti Prakash Banerjee (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that "Material which amounts to stigma need not be contained in termination order of a probationer but might be contained in documents referred to in the termination order or in its annexures."
Nar Singh Pal vs Union Of India & Ors on 28 March, 2000
In the case reported in (2000)3 SCC 588 Nar Singh Pal versus Union of India and others, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where during pendency of the criminal trial, an order of termination is passed on account of involvement in criminal case, it shall not amount to simpliciter order of retrenchment and shall be punitive amounting to dismissal.
Mathew P. Thomas vs Kerala State Civil Supply Corpn. Ltd. & ... on 19 February, 2003
(paras 3 and 4)
Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated the aforesaid principle in the cases reported in (2001)9 SCC 318 Bank of India versus Indu Rajagopalan and others, (2002)10 SCC 394 Shailaja Shivajirao Patil versus President, Hon'ble Khasdar UGS Sanstha and others, (2003)2 SCC 386 Dhananjay versus Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jalna , (2003)3 SCC 263 Mathew P. Thomas versus Kerala State Civil Supply Corporation Limited and others and (2004)11 SCC 743 State of Punjab and others versus Balbir Singh.
Town Area Committee, Jalalabad vs Jagdish Prasad And Ors. on 7 April, 1978
It is settled principle of law that even a temporary government servant charged for mis-conduct is entitled to face regular enquiry. Regular enquiry means after service of charge-sheet and receipt of reply to the charge-sheet, oral evidence should be recorded with opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. Thereafter, the delinquent employee has a right to lead evidence in defence and opportunity of personal hearing should be given by the enquiry officer vide 1990 LCD 486 Jagdish Prasad Singh versus State of U.P., 1998 LCD 199 Avatar Singh versus State of U.P., 1979 Vl. I SCC 60 Town Area Committee, Jalalabad versus Jagdish Prasad, 1980 Vol.
State Of U.P. And Ors. vs Ashok Kumar on 13 December, 2005
Again Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated the aforesaid principle in the cases reported in (2005)13 SCC 652 State of U.P. and others versus Ashok Kumar, (2005)6 SCC 135 State of U.P. and others versus Vijay Shanker Tripathi, (2006)9 SCC 167 Hari Ram Maurya versus Union of India and others, (2008)2 SCC 479 Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan versus Mehbub Alam Laskar and (2008)3 SCC 386 Union of India and others versus Rajesh Vyas.
State Of Uttar Pradesh And Ors vs Vijay Shanker Tripathi on 20 July, 2005
Again Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated the aforesaid principle in the cases reported in (2005)13 SCC 652 State of U.P. and others versus Ashok Kumar, (2005)6 SCC 135 State of U.P. and others versus Vijay Shanker Tripathi, (2006)9 SCC 167 Hari Ram Maurya versus Union of India and others, (2008)2 SCC 479 Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan versus Mehbub Alam Laskar and (2008)3 SCC 386 Union of India and others versus Rajesh Vyas.