Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.18 seconds)
Bipra Charan Kar vs Chief General Manager, State Bank Of ... on 24 January, 2003 cites

Baldev Raj Chadha vs Union Of India & Ors on 18 August, 1980

In Baldev Raj Chadha v. Union of India (supra) cited by Mr. Acharya, learned counsel for the petitioner the Supreme Court found that the adverse entries of the petitioner for the years 1961-62 to the end of 1970 had been taken into consideration and the petitioner had been compulsorily retired on the basis of the said adverse entries whereas the petitioner in the said case had no adverse entries during the last five years immediately before the compulsory retirement, i.e. during 1971-72, 1972-73, 1973-74, 1974-1975 and 1975- 1976 till the date of his retirement from the service on August 27, 1975 and the petitioner had been allowed to cross Efficiency Bar and had been paid maximum salary in the scale. On these facts, the Supreme Court held that the order of compulsory retirement fails because vital material, relevant to the decision has been ignored and obsolete material, less relevant to the decision has influenced the decision. In the present case, on the other hand, the adverse entries/ features of the service records of the petitioner during the years and months just prior to the impugned orders not to extend the service of the petitioner have been taken into consideration and these adverse entries are obviously relevant entries and not entries which were obsolete and not relevant to the decision.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 151 - V R Iyer - Full Document

Chief General Manager, State Bank Of ... vs Suresh Chandra Behera on 10 April, 1995

The petitioner, however, preferred an appeal to the appellate authority then deputed one Senior Official of the rank of Deputy General Manager to enquire into the matter and the said Deputy General Manager submitted a report in Annexure-H to the counter affidavit and the appellate authority sought the concurrence of the Corporate Office not to grant further extension and in the meanwhile, extended the service of the petitioner upto August 31, 2002. The Corporate Office at Mumbai thereafter concurred with the view of the appellate authority but the services of the petitioner could not be terminated on account of the interim order passed by this Court on May 30, 2002. Mr. Ramdas submitted that considering the aforesaid facts, the order not extending the service of the petitioner cannot be held to be vitiated by mala fide or without any evidence or arbitrary calling for interference from this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Mr. Ramdas relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Bhubaneswar v. Suresh Chandra Behra, AIR 1995 SC 1745 : 1995-II-LLJ-852 in which the Supreme Court refused to interfere with the order of retirement passed by the competent authority.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 16 - S V Manohar - Full Document

Sri Baikunthanath Das vs Chief Dt. Medical Officer And Ors. on 22 December, 1981

In Baikunthanath Das and Anr. v. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada (supra) cited by Mr. Acharya, learned counsel for the petitioner, the High Court had found that there were adverse remarks against Baikunthanath Das to the effect that he was most insincere, irregular in habits and negligent and besides being a person of doubtful integrity, he had been quarrelsome with his colleagues and superior officers and had been creating problems for the administration and the High Court did not interfere with the order of compulsory retirement. The Supreme Court held that it cannot be said that the order of compulsory retirement suffers from mala fide or that it is based on no evidence or that it is arbitrary and dismissed the appeal filed by Baikunthanath Das. In the present case also we have found that the impugned order not to extend the service of the petitioner beyond May 31, 2002 are based on various adverse entries/features in the service records of the petitioner and we hold that it does not suffer from mala fides and is not based on no evidence and is not arbitrary.
Orissa High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 7 - M Rangnath - Full Document
1