Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.34 seconds)
Kirtikakumari Barjulbhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 13 September, 2023 cites

Chetan Jayantilal Rajgor vs State Of Gujarat on 13 June, 2018

5.2 The very issue was considered by this court in Chetan Jayantilal Rajgor Vs. State of Gujarat being Special Civil Application No.4439 of 2017 in which it was held that the stigmatic order of termination or imposing punishment was not permissible in law without holding full-fledged departmental inquiry. The decision came to be confirmed in Letters Patent Appeal No.1596 of 2019 decided on 24.7.2020.
Gujarat High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 8 - P P Bhatt - Full Document

Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd vs Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha on 19 November, 1979

(para 29) (emphasis supplied) Page 6 of 13 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 18 20:36:28 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17120/2022 ORDER DATED: 13/09/2023 undefined 5.2 The Supreme Court in Gujarat Steel Tubes Limited v. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha [(1980) 2 SCC 593] stated and observed thus, "53. Masters and servants cannot be permitted to play hide and seek with the law of dismissals and the plain and proper criteria are not to be misdirected by terminological cover-ups or by appeal to psychic processes but must be grounded on the substantive reason for the order, whether disclosed or undisclosed. The Court will find out from other proceedings or documents connected with the formal order of termination what the true ground for the termination is. If, thus scrutinised, the order has a punitive flavour in cause or consequence, it is dismissal. If it falls short of this test, it cannot be called a punishment. To put it slightly differently, a termination effected because the master is satisfied of the misconduct and of the consequent desirability of terminating the service of the delinquent servant, is a dismissal, even if he had the right in law to terminate with an innocent order under the standing order or otherwise. Whether, in such a case the grounds are recorded in a different proceeding from the formal order does not detract from its nature. Nor the fact that, after being satisfied of the guilt, the master abandons the enquiry and proceeds to terminate. Given an alleged misconduct and a live nexus between it and the termination of service the conclusion is dismissal, even if full benefits as on simple termination, are given and non-injurious terminology is used." (Emphasis supplied) (Para 9) 5.4 The principle stated was that even the form of the order may be merely a camouflage for order of dismissal actually passed on the basis of misconduct. In such circumstances, the Apex Page 7 of 13 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 18 20:36:28 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17120/2022 ORDER DATED: 13/09/2023 undefined Court stated, it is always open to the court before which the order is challenged, to go beyond the form and ascertain thetrue character of the order. The Supreme Court held, "If .... .... .... the court reaches the conclusion that the alleged act of misconduct was the cause of the order and that but for that incident it would not have been passed then it is inevitable that the order of discharge should fall to the ground where the aggrieved officer is not afforded a reasonable opportunity to defend himself as provided in Article 311(2). It is wrong to assume that it is only when there is a full scale departmental enquiry any termination made thereafter will attract the operation of Article 311(2)." (Paras 11 and 13) 5.2.3 It was further observed that, it is the foundation of the order which really matters.
Supreme Court of India Cites 60 - Cited by 777 - V R Iyer - Full Document

Chaitanya Prakash & Anr vs H.Omkarappa on 12 January, 2010

NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17120/2022 ORDER DATED: 13/09/2023 undefined "8. Even decision relied by learned Assistant Government Pleader in the case of Chaitanya Prakash and Another v. H. Omlarappa reported in (2010) 2 SCC 623 quotes decision in the case of Pavanendra Narayan Verma vs. Sanjay Gandhi PGI of Medical Sciences [(2002) 1 SCC 520] where three tests are enumerated to determine whether in substance an order of termination is punitive or not. We find in the present case all above tests namely a full scale formal inquiry, allegation involving moral turpitude or misconduct and culminating into guilt stands satisfied and therefore we have no hesitation to hold that the learned Single Judge committed no error of fact or law or jurisdiction warranting interference in this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent."
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 106 - M Sharma - Full Document

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

NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17120/2022 ORDER DATED: 13/09/2023 undefined "8. Even decision relied by learned Assistant Government Pleader in the case of Chaitanya Prakash and Another v. H. Omlarappa reported in (2010) 2 SCC 623 quotes decision in the case of Pavanendra Narayan Verma vs. Sanjay Gandhi PGI of Medical Sciences [(2002) 1 SCC 520] where three tests are enumerated to determine whether in substance an order of termination is punitive or not. We find in the present case all above tests namely a full scale formal inquiry, allegation involving moral turpitude or misconduct and culminating into guilt stands satisfied and therefore we have no hesitation to hold that the learned Single Judge committed no error of fact or law or jurisdiction warranting interference in this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent."
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 367 - R Pal - Full Document

Vadodara Municipal Corporation vs Manish Nayanbhai Mod on 25 January, 2017

"The bone of contention of appellants - State authorities is that since the original petitioners are employed on a contract basis and fixed pay, the Department is not under an obligation to conduct a detailed full-scale departmental inquiry. Now, this contention has been the subject matter of scrutiny on earlier occasion before a Coordinate Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No.189 of 2018 between Vadodara Municipal Corporation v. Manishbhai Nayanbhai Modh, decided on 20.2.2018. The relevant observations contained in the said decision are reflecting in Para.4.1 which are also based upon the decision of the Apex Court and in consonance with the provision of the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1971. The said observations have also been considered at length by the learned Single Judge which are reflecting in Para. 5.7 of the impugned order. "
Gujarat High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 84 - S G Gokani - Full Document
1