Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (2.12 seconds)
R. Janaki vs The Teachers Recruitment Board on 10 July, 2017 cites

Ambika Prasad Mishra Etc vs State Of U.P. And Ors. Etc on 9 May, 1980

20. The learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kamal Nayan Page No.16/20 http://www.judis.nic.in W.A.No.2600 of 2019 Mishra vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, reported in 2010 (2) SCC 169, to contend that before passing the order of termination, the respondent did not conduct an enquiry. In that case before the Supreme Court, the appellant therein was appointed as a Peon on 24.07.1980. After eight years of his service, on 22.08.1989, the appellant therein was charge sheeted in a criminal case for the offences under Sections 148, 342/149, 326/149 and 506 of IPC. In the year 1994, the appellant/writ petitioner was called upon to submit an attestation form by his employer by furnishing certain personal details. In column No.12 of the form, he was called upon to state as to whether he was arrested, prosecuted or kept under detention by any Court for which he answered "No". However, on 14.07.1995, the Deputy Inspector General (Special Cell) Bhopal, submitted a report stating that the appellant therein involved himself in the criminal case. Based on such report, no action was taken thereof by the employer and the appellant therein was allowed to continue in the post till 07.03.2002. While so, on 07.03.2002, without conducting any enquiry, an Office order was issued terminating the appellant therein from service. Further, after such termination, the appellant therein was acquitted from the criminal case on 09.09.2004. It is in those Page No.17/20 http://www.judis.nic.in W.A.No.2600 of 2019 circumstances, the Supreme Court held that terminating the appellant/writ petitioner without conducting any enquiry, is bad. In the present case, the question of conducting an enquiry will not arise, inasmuch as the appellant/writ petitioner herself admitted that she did not possess the requisite qualification for holding the post of Graduate Assistant (Mathematics) even at the time of conducting the interview. All that the appellant/writ petitioner stated in her explanation is that she was called upon to fill up the ICR Form by indicating the post for which the call letter was issued to her. Thus, even at the time of selection process, the appellant/writ petitioner knew fully well about her demeanour in continuing in the selection process for the sake of securing employment. In such view of the matter, after six years of her service, finding that the appointment of the appellant/writ petitioner itself is irregular, the order dated 30.06.2013 came to be passed. The learned Single Judge, while upholding the order dated 30.06.2013, rightly issued direction to take appropriate action as is necessary against the erring officials for having appointed the appellant/writ petitioner in a post to which she is not qualified. We find no error or infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 273 - V R Iyer - Full Document

Kamal Nayan Mishra vs State Of M.P. & Ors on 7 December, 2009

15. The learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kamal Nayan Mishra Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others), reported in 2010 (2) SCC 169, wherein, it has been held that terminating the service of the appellant/writ petitioner, who had rendered 21 years of service as Peon, without any enquiry, is illegal and violative of Article 311 (2) of The Constitution of India.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 401 - Full Document
1