Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.37 seconds)
Minshu Saxena vs Union Of India And Others on 13 January, 2012 cites

Anoop Jaiswal vs Government Of India & Anr on 24 January, 1984

"In Anoop Jaiswal v. Govt. of India it was held while quashing the order of termination that it was open to the court to go behind the order and find out if the report/recommendation of the superior authority was a camouflage and if that was the basis or foundation for the order, then the report/recommendation should be read along with the order for the purpose of determining the true character of termination. If on a reading of the two together, the court reached the conclusion that the alleged finding of misconduct was the cause or basis of the order, and that but for the report containing such finding, the order would not and could not have been passed, the termination order would have to fall to the ground as having been passed without the officer being afforded a reasonable opportunity of hearing. It was also held that it was wrong to presume that an order would be punitive only if a regular enquiry was conducted ex parte or behind the back of the officer. Even if it was not a regular enquiry, any other enquiry where evidence was taken and findings were arrived at behind the back of the officer, would make the subsequent termination bad."
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 303 - E S Venkataramiah - Full Document

Krishnadevaraya Education Trust And ... vs L.A. Balakrishna on 15 January, 2001

16. In reply, the counsel for the respondent-bank has contended that there was material on record to judge that the petitioner was not a suitable candidate for confirmation, therefore, the termination of her service during the period of probation was not arbitrary, and in any view of the matter it was not stigmatic as neither fact finding enquiry was conducted nor harsh words were used in the order of termination. It has also been submitted that an order of termination, which if otherwise valid, cannot be invalidated by reason of any statement made in any affidavit seeking to justify the order. Reliance has been placed by him on three decisions of the apex court namely, (2002) 1 SCC 520 (Pavanendra Narayan Verma versus Sanjay Gandhi PGI of Medical sciences and another), (2001) 9 SCC 319 (Krishna Devaraya Education Trust & another versus L.A. Balakrishna) and (2008) 3 SCC 310 Progressive Education Society and another versus Rajendra and another.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 104 - Full Document

Progressive Education Society & Anr vs Rajendra & Anr on 15 February, 2008

16. In reply, the counsel for the respondent-bank has contended that there was material on record to judge that the petitioner was not a suitable candidate for confirmation, therefore, the termination of her service during the period of probation was not arbitrary, and in any view of the matter it was not stigmatic as neither fact finding enquiry was conducted nor harsh words were used in the order of termination. It has also been submitted that an order of termination, which if otherwise valid, cannot be invalidated by reason of any statement made in any affidavit seeking to justify the order. Reliance has been placed by him on three decisions of the apex court namely, (2002) 1 SCC 520 (Pavanendra Narayan Verma versus Sanjay Gandhi PGI of Medical sciences and another), (2001) 9 SCC 319 (Krishna Devaraya Education Trust & another versus L.A. Balakrishna) and (2008) 3 SCC 310 Progressive Education Society and another versus Rajendra and another.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 38 - A Kabir - Full Document

Union Of India & Ors vs Mahaveer C.Singvi on 29 July, 2010

Again the aforestated principle has been affirmed in a recent three judges' bench decision of the apex court in the case of Union of India & Ors. v. Mahaveer C. Singhvi reported in AIR 2010 SC 3493. Another test to ascertain whether the order of termination is simpliciter or punitive has been adopted by courts. This test has been termed as the "form" and "substance" test. By this test, if by the "form" of the order, it is stigmatic then it would be punitive. But if by the "form" the order does not cast stigma, then the "substance" of the order is to be found out, which implies that the court from the material placed before it can discover whether the order in substance was punitive or not.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 100 - A Kabir - Full Document

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

This principle is also deducible from para 28 of the judgment of the apex court in the case of Pavanendra Narayan Verma (supra) cited by the counsel for the respondent. The judgments relied upon by the counsel for the respondent, as referred to in paragraph 16 of this judgment, do not lay down any law contrary to the principle already discussed by us, accordingly, we do not propose to deal with those judgments separately. The law, thus, as on date, is that if the foundation of an order of termination of the services of the probationer is based upon a misconduct and not general unsuitability of the candidate, then it is open for the Court to ignore the form of the order and conclude that the same is punitive. If the Court comes to the conclusion that the order is punitive, then in absence of opportunity to the officer concerned to disprove/dispel the allegations against him, the order of termination would be liable to be set aside.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 367 - R Pal - Full Document
1