Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.52 seconds)
Kalyan Kumar Sen vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 14 May, 2008 cites

Mysore State Road Transport ... vs Mirja Khasim All Beg & Anr on 1 December, 1976

(12) It is true that the respondent may visit the punishment of discharge or removal from service on a person who has absented himself without leave and without reasonable cause, but this cannot entail automatic removal from service without giving such person reasonable opportunity to show cause why he be not removed. The appellant is entitled to a reasonable opportunity to show cause which includes an opportunity to deny his guilt and establish his innocence which he can do only when he knows what the charges levelled against him are and the allegations on which such charges are based. In our judgment, the appellant was entitled to an opportunity to show cause against the action proposed to be taken against him." So, it appears that the ratio, as decided in all those cases is to the effect that without initiating a departmental proceeding and without giving an opportunity to the concerned employee to give explanation in respect of the alleged misdeed, the service of such employee should not be terminated. There cannot be any dispute in this respect. So, I have got no hesitation to hold that the manner in which the service of the writ petitioner/appellant was terminated appears to be not proper. Since it appears that the order of discharge, so passed by the departmental authority, without initiating any departmental proceeding, appears to be improper, so there cannot be any doubt that such defect could not be cured by the order passed by the appellate authority. The decision reported in AIR 1977 SC 747 (Mysore State Road Transport Corporation vs. Mirja Khasim Ali Bag & Anr.) is very much relevant in this respect. In the said decision the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 85 - J Singh - Full Document

Deokinandan Prasad vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 4 May, 1971

That apart, Mr. Sarkar, learned advocate for the appellant, in support of his contention that the order of discharge without initiating any departmental proceeding was illegal, cited decisions, reported in AIR 1971 SC 1409 (Deokinandan Prasad vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) and AIR 1966 SC 1364 (Mafatlal Narandas Barot vs. D. Rathod, Divisional Controller, State Transport Mehsana & Anr.).
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 429 - C A Vaidyialingam - Full Document

Mafatlal Naraindas Barot vs Divisional Controller, State ... on 13 December, 1965

That apart, Mr. Sarkar, learned advocate for the appellant, in support of his contention that the order of discharge without initiating any departmental proceeding was illegal, cited decisions, reported in AIR 1971 SC 1409 (Deokinandan Prasad vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) and AIR 1966 SC 1364 (Mafatlal Narandas Barot vs. D. Rathod, Divisional Controller, State Transport Mehsana & Anr.).
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 32 - Full Document

Panchugopal Barua & Ors vs Umesh Chandra Goswami & Ors on 12 February, 1997

In this respect he has relied upon the decisions reported in AIR 1997 SC 1041 (Panchu Gopal Barua & Ors. vs. Umesh Chandra Goswami & Ors.) and AIR 2000 SC 1165 (United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Rajendra Singh & Ors.). In support of his contention, Mr. Bhattcharjee argued that the writ petitioner practised fraud upon the court by annexing the Annexure P-7, which is at page 37, in order to impress upon the court that actually no discharge order was passed by the appropriate authority. Mr. Bhattacharjee argued that there was no such existence of this document, as filed by the writ petitioner in support of his case. According to him, it is a forged document prepared for the purpose of the writ application. In this respect, he has drawn our attention to the affidavit sworn by the then Chairman-man-Managing Director of the Calcutta Tramways Company, who is at present serving as the Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, wherein it was clearly stated that no such document was issued by him in favour of the writ petitioner nor he signed in the said document, that is annexed as Annexure P-7 to the writ petition. There is no reason whatsoever to disbelieve the statement of the then Chairman-man-Managing Director and it appears that the learned Trial Judge was perfectly justified in holding that the writ petitioner practised fraud upon the court by way of using a document which is not genuine.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 173 - S B Majmudar - Full Document

United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Rajendra Singh & Ors on 14 March, 2000

In this respect he has relied upon the decisions reported in AIR 1997 SC 1041 (Panchu Gopal Barua & Ors. vs. Umesh Chandra Goswami & Ors.) and AIR 2000 SC 1165 (United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Rajendra Singh & Ors.). In support of his contention, Mr. Bhattcharjee argued that the writ petitioner practised fraud upon the court by annexing the Annexure P-7, which is at page 37, in order to impress upon the court that actually no discharge order was passed by the appropriate authority. Mr. Bhattacharjee argued that there was no such existence of this document, as filed by the writ petitioner in support of his case. According to him, it is a forged document prepared for the purpose of the writ application. In this respect, he has drawn our attention to the affidavit sworn by the then Chairman-man-Managing Director of the Calcutta Tramways Company, who is at present serving as the Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, wherein it was clearly stated that no such document was issued by him in favour of the writ petitioner nor he signed in the said document, that is annexed as Annexure P-7 to the writ petition. There is no reason whatsoever to disbelieve the statement of the then Chairman-man-Managing Director and it appears that the learned Trial Judge was perfectly justified in holding that the writ petitioner practised fraud upon the court by way of using a document which is not genuine.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 474 - K T Thomas - Full Document

Sudhir Vishnu Panvalkar vs Bank Of India on 6 May, 1997

In this respect, decisions reported in 2005 (11) SCC 546 (Cheripalli Madar vs. Assistant Division Engineers & Ors.), AIR 1997 SC 2249 (Sudhir Vishnu Panvalkar vs. Bank of India), AIR 2007 SC 1365 (New Delhi Municipal Council vs. Pan Singh & Ors.), 1998 (6) SCC 549 (Scooters India & Ors. vs. Vijai E. Eldred), AIR 1992 SC 1414 (Bhoop Singh vs. Union of India & Ors., AIR 2007 SC 2640 (Nadia Distt.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 53 - S P Kurdukar - Full Document

New Delhi Municipal Council vs Pan Singh & Ors on 8 March, 2007

In this respect, decisions reported in 2005 (11) SCC 546 (Cheripalli Madar vs. Assistant Division Engineers & Ors.), AIR 1997 SC 2249 (Sudhir Vishnu Panvalkar vs. Bank of India), AIR 2007 SC 1365 (New Delhi Municipal Council vs. Pan Singh & Ors.), 1998 (6) SCC 549 (Scooters India & Ors. vs. Vijai E. Eldred), AIR 1992 SC 1414 (Bhoop Singh vs. Union of India & Ors., AIR 2007 SC 2640 (Nadia Distt.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 582 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Scooters India And Ors. vs Vijai E.V. Eldred on 3 October, 1996

In this respect, decisions reported in 2005 (11) SCC 546 (Cheripalli Madar vs. Assistant Division Engineers & Ors.), AIR 1997 SC 2249 (Sudhir Vishnu Panvalkar vs. Bank of India), AIR 2007 SC 1365 (New Delhi Municipal Council vs. Pan Singh & Ors.), 1998 (6) SCC 549 (Scooters India & Ors. vs. Vijai E. Eldred), AIR 1992 SC 1414 (Bhoop Singh vs. Union of India & Ors., AIR 2007 SC 2640 (Nadia Distt.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 114 - Full Document
1   2 Next