Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.20 seconds)
Inder Singh vs . Uoi & Ors. on 15 April, 2015 cites

Gouranga Chakraborty vs State Of Tripura And Anr on 31 March, 1989

In view of the above, the learned Single Judge has rightly held that rule does not reveal that holding an inquiry is a pre- requisite to an order dismissing or removing a person from service on the ground of misconduct. The competent authority is required to consider the reports of misconduct and after recording satisfaction if it is found that for the retention of an employee in service would be undesirable then competent authority can pass an order for his dismissal. We are in full agreement with the finding given by the learned Single Judge while following the judgment rendered in the case of Gauranga Chakraborty Vs. State of Tripura reported in (1989) 3 SCC 314. Therefore, we are of the opinion that no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge to dismiss the writ petition filed by the appellant-petitioner against the order of termination dated 19.5.1999 passed by the Commandant, 126 10 BN, BSF.
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 32 - B C Ray - Full Document

State Of Rajasthan And Anr vs Mohammed Ayub Naz on 3 January, 2006

In the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan & Anr. Vs. Mohammed Ayub Naz reported in 2006 I AD (SC) 208 the Hon'ble Supreme Court after referring to many other precedents has held that absenteeism from office for prolong period of time without prior permission by the Government servant has become a principal cause of indiscipline which have greatly affected various Government servants. It is also held that in order to mitigate the rampant absenteeism and willful absence from service without intimation to the Government the Government has promulgated a rule that if the government servant remains willfully absent for a period exceeding one month and if the charge of willful absence from duty is proved against him, he may be removed from service. The Supreme Court held that the order of removal from service passed in the said case was the only proper punishment to be awarded in view of the fact that Government servant was absent from duty for long period without intimation to the Government.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 164 - A R Lakshmanan - Full Document

Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. vs Umesh Kumar Malik on 8 December, 2005

Admittedly, in the reply filed by the respondents BSF the conduct of the petitioner-appellant since his appointment was narrated but no rejoinder is filed by the petitioner with regard to the allegation of misconduct. In our opinion, when there is power left under rule 22 of the Rules of 1969 with the competent authority that retention of an employee in service is undesirable then such power can be exercised by the competent authority to pass an order after informing the employee all adverse reports to him and to call upon to submit in writing his explanation in defence and in this case, admittedly, two show cause notices 7 were given to the petitioner-appellant for the alleged misconduct to remain absent from duty without leave and in pursuance of that certain medical prescriptions and documents were submitted by the appellant, but no rejoinder to the reply to para nos. A and B of the writ petition was submitted by the appellant before the learned Single Judge, therefore, in our view, the learned Single Judge has correctly held that it is a case in which Commandant has exercised its power under rule 22 of the Rules of 1969 so as to terminate the appellant-petitioner from service. The learned Single Judge has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Gauranga Chakraborty Vs. State of Tripura reported in (1989) 3 SCC 314 and the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Union of India Vs. Umesh Kumar Malik :DBSAW No.1033/1997 and the judgment of the Delhi High Court delivered in Ex.CT Sanjay Singh Vs. Union of India W.P.(C) 6123 of 1999 decided on 9.2.2012 in which it has been held that power exercised by the Commandant under Section 11(2) read with rule 22 of the Rules of 1969 is nothing but it is the power of security force for dealing with the official such as absent from duty without leave.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 1 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Ex. Capt. Rameshwar Singh vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. [Along With ... on 3 September, 2004

Admittedly, in the reply filed by the respondents BSF the conduct of the petitioner-appellant since his appointment was narrated but no rejoinder is filed by the petitioner with regard to the allegation of misconduct. In our opinion, when there is power left under rule 22 of the Rules of 1969 with the competent authority that retention of an employee in service is undesirable then such power can be exercised by the competent authority to pass an order after informing the employee all adverse reports to him and to call upon to submit in writing his explanation in defence and in this case, admittedly, two show cause notices 7 were given to the petitioner-appellant for the alleged misconduct to remain absent from duty without leave and in pursuance of that certain medical prescriptions and documents were submitted by the appellant, but no rejoinder to the reply to para nos. A and B of the writ petition was submitted by the appellant before the learned Single Judge, therefore, in our view, the learned Single Judge has correctly held that it is a case in which Commandant has exercised its power under rule 22 of the Rules of 1969 so as to terminate the appellant-petitioner from service. The learned Single Judge has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Gauranga Chakraborty Vs. State of Tripura reported in (1989) 3 SCC 314 and the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Union of India Vs. Umesh Kumar Malik :DBSAW No.1033/1997 and the judgment of the Delhi High Court delivered in Ex.CT Sanjay Singh Vs. Union of India W.P.(C) 6123 of 1999 decided on 9.2.2012 in which it has been held that power exercised by the Commandant under Section 11(2) read with rule 22 of the Rules of 1969 is nothing but it is the power of security force for dealing with the official such as absent from duty without leave.
Delhi High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 4 - M Sharma - Full Document
1