Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.32 seconds)
Ram Kumar vs State Of U.P. & Others on 4 May, 2012 cites

State Of U.P. And Another State Of U.P. ... vs Km. Prem Lata Misra And Others on 21 April, 1994

In the case of Radhey Shyam Shukla Vs. State of U.P. and others (2008) 1 UPLBEC 177 Hon'ble the Supreme Court after considering the various case laws has held in the cases of Triveni Shanker Saxena V. State of U.P. 1992 SCC(L&S) 440 and State of U.P. V. Prem Lata Misra (1994) 4 SCC 189 has held that in the former case, the termination order was simple order which did not cast any stigma and there were several adverse entries in the confidential reports. The termination was as per rules. In the letter case, the employees superiors complained that the employee was not regular in her work and was in the habit of leaving office during office hours. A simple order of termination was passed in terms of the order of her temporary appointment. There was no prior enquiry. In both these cases, the termination orders were upheld.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 57 - Full Document

Radhey Shyam Shukla vs State Of U.P. And Others on 31 August, 2010

In the case of Radhey Shyam Shukla Vs. State of U.P. and others (2008) 1 UPLBEC 177 Hon'ble the Supreme Court after considering the various case laws has held in the cases of Triveni Shanker Saxena V. State of U.P. 1992 SCC(L&S) 440 and State of U.P. V. Prem Lata Misra (1994) 4 SCC 189 has held that in the former case, the termination order was simple order which did not cast any stigma and there were several adverse entries in the confidential reports. The termination was as per rules. In the letter case, the employees superiors complained that the employee was not regular in her work and was in the habit of leaving office during office hours. A simple order of termination was passed in terms of the order of her temporary appointment. There was no prior enquiry. In both these cases, the termination orders were upheld.
Allahabad High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

Triveni Shankar Saxena vs State Of U.P. And Others on 20 December, 1991

In the case of Radhey Shyam Shukla Vs. State of U.P. and others (2008) 1 UPLBEC 177 Hon'ble the Supreme Court after considering the various case laws has held in the cases of Triveni Shanker Saxena V. State of U.P. 1992 SCC(L&S) 440 and State of U.P. V. Prem Lata Misra (1994) 4 SCC 189 has held that in the former case, the termination order was simple order which did not cast any stigma and there were several adverse entries in the confidential reports. The termination was as per rules. In the letter case, the employees superiors complained that the employee was not regular in her work and was in the habit of leaving office during office hours. A simple order of termination was passed in terms of the order of her temporary appointment. There was no prior enquiry. In both these cases, the termination orders were upheld.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 151 - S R Pandian - Full Document

Chandra Prakash Shahi vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 25 April, 2000

Similarly in Chandra Prakash Shahi Vs. State of U.P. and others, (2000)5 SCC 152, the Hon'ble Supreme Court articulated that if for determination of suitability for the post or for his further retention in service or for confirmation, an inquiry is held and it is on the basis of that inquiry that a decision is taken to terminate the services, the order will not be punitive in nature. But , if there are some allegations of misconduct and an inquiry is held to find out the trust of that misconduct and thereafter the order of termination is passed, the order would be punitive in nature .
Supreme Court of India Cites 33 - Cited by 121 - S S Ahmad - Full Document

Nar Singh Pal vs Union Of India & Ors. on 29 March, 2000

In the case of Nar Singh Pal Vs. Union of India and others(2000) 3 SCC 588, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the reasoning of the Tribunal is fallacious. If an order had been passed by way of punishment and was punitive in nature, it was the duty of the respondents to hold a regular departmental enquiry and they could not have terminated the services of the appellant arbitrarily by paying him the retrenchment compensation. The observation of the Tribunal that the respondent had a choice either to hold a regular departmental enquiry or to terminate the services by payment of retrenchment compensation is wholly incorrect.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 24 - S S Ahmad - Full Document

State Of Uttar Pradesh And Ors vs Vijay Shanker Tripathi on 20 July, 2005

In the case of State of U.P. and others Vs. Vijay Shanker Tripathi (2005) 6 SCC 135 Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that from a long line of decisions it appears to us that whether an order of termination is simpliciter or punitive has ultimately to be decided having due regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. Many a times the distinction between the foundation and motive in relation to an order of termination either thin or overlapping. It may be difficult either to categories or classify strictly orders of termination simpliciter falling in one or the other category, based on misconduct as foundation for passing the order of termination simpliciter or to motive on the ground of unsuitability to continue in service.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 17 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Rambilash Bharti vs The Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. And Ors. on 1 August, 2007

A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kailash Bharti Vs. State of U.P. and others 2005 (23) LCD 436 has held that the factual situation indicates that had there been no allegation of drunkenness there would have been no order of termination. The papers and affidavits show this and those are all matters of record. The whole thing having come to the notice of the Writ Court it cannot now say that the Court and everybody else will now only look at the faceless, or the unreasoned; letter of termination, but it will show its eyes to the history of its genesis. This type of self-imposed partial blindness is not permitted to the Writ Court. As such the order of termination brought into existence, because an allegation of drunkenness against the writ petitioner was found without any hearing to be true, has to be set aside.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 4 - N N Tiwari - Full Document
1