Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.21 seconds)
Manganese Ore India Ltd. Thr Chairman ... vs Smt. Naseem Ahmad Wd/O Sayed Irshad ... on 3 September, 2021 cites

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

In the decisions of the Union of India and others vs. Mahaveer c. Singhvi & Registrar General High Court of Gujarat and ::: Uploaded on - 03/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 04/09/2021 07:17:30 ::: J-lpa291&325.10.odt 24/27 another vs. Jayshree Chamanlal Buddhbhatti, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that if a finding against a probationer is arrived at behind his or her back on the basis of the enquiry conducted into the allegations made against him/her and if the same formed the foundation of the order of discharge, the same would be bad and liable to be set aside. It is held that on the other hand, if no enquiry was held or contemplated and the allegations were merely a motive for the passing of an order of discharge of a probationer without giving him a hearing, the same would be valid. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that the probationer has no right to hold the post and his service can be terminated at any time during or at the end of the probation on account of general unsuitability for the post held by him. It is held that in such cases though the termination order is non-stigmatic, Court can lift the veil and examine whether in garb of termination simplicitor, employer had punished the employee for misconduct. It is held that the order of terminating services of the probationer for unsatisfactory service cannot be said to be stigmatic. If the termination is simplicitor due to unsuitability it cannot be a case of punishment for misconduct.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 100 - A Kabir - Full Document

Dipti Prakash Banerjee vs Satvendra Nath Bose National Centre For ... on 10 February, 1999

In the case of Dipti Prakash Banerjee vs. Satvendra Nath Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences, Calcutta and others, reported in AIR 1999 Supreme Court 983, it is held that use of words with regard to the conduct, performance, ability and capacity during the whole probationary period was not satisfactory in the termination order may not necessarily amount to stigmatic. Whether it would amount ::: Uploaded on - 03/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 04/09/2021 07:17:30 ::: J-lpa291&325.10.odt 23/27 to stigma or not depends upon the facts and circumstances of each. It is held that if the allegations constitute a motive and not the foundation for termination then such simple order of termination would be valid.
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 500 - M J Rao - Full Document

Chaitanya Prakash & Anr vs H.Omkarappa on 12 January, 2010

23. The learned Advocate for the respondent relying upon three decisions in the cases of Chaitanya Prakash and another vs. H. Omkarappa, reported in (2010)2 SCC 623, Abhijit Gupta vs. S.N.B. National Centre, Basic Sciences and others, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 469 and State Bank of India and others vs. Palak Modi and another, reported in (2013)3 SCC 607 and submitted that in this case the performance of the appellant was found unsatisfactory and her conduct clearly established that she was not interested in doing the service and as such the order of termination without casting any aspersion on the appellant could not be said to be stigmatic.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 106 - M Sharma - Full Document

Abhujit Gupta vs S.N. B. National Centre, Basic Sciences ... on 18 April, 2006

23. The learned Advocate for the respondent relying upon three decisions in the cases of Chaitanya Prakash and another vs. H. Omkarappa, reported in (2010)2 SCC 623, Abhijit Gupta vs. S.N.B. National Centre, Basic Sciences and others, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 469 and State Bank of India and others vs. Palak Modi and another, reported in (2013)3 SCC 607 and submitted that in this case the performance of the appellant was found unsatisfactory and her conduct clearly established that she was not interested in doing the service and as such the order of termination without casting any aspersion on the appellant could not be said to be stigmatic.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 74 - Full Document
1