Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.22 seconds)
Pawan Kumar vs State Of Hy And Ors on 17 May, 2023 cites

Jagdish Mitter vs Union Of India on 20 September, 1963

The view expressed in the consequences as held in the aforesaid Parshottam Lal Dhingra's case (supra) was reiterated and affirmed by other Constitutional Bench decisions in Jagdish Mitter vs. Union of India, AIR 1964 Supreme Court 449; A.G. Benjamin vs. Union of India, 1967(1) LLJ 718 and State of U.P. vs. Kaushal Kishore Shukla, 1991(1) SCC 691. Some of the propositions which can be extracted from the observations of different Courts are summarized as under:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 216 - Full Document

Ex.N.K.A.Benzamin vs Union Of India on 7 November, 2019

The view expressed in the consequences as held in the aforesaid Parshottam Lal Dhingra's case (supra) was reiterated and affirmed by other Constitutional Bench decisions in Jagdish Mitter vs. Union of India, AIR 1964 Supreme Court 449; A.G. Benjamin vs. Union of India, 1967(1) LLJ 718 and State of U.P. vs. Kaushal Kishore Shukla, 1991(1) SCC 691. Some of the propositions which can be extracted from the observations of different Courts are summarized as under:-
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 9 - S M Subramaniam - Full Document

State Of Uttar Pradesh And Anr vs Kaushal Kishore Shukla on 11 January, 1991

The view expressed in the consequences as held in the aforesaid Parshottam Lal Dhingra's case (supra) was reiterated and affirmed by other Constitutional Bench decisions in Jagdish Mitter vs. Union of India, AIR 1964 Supreme Court 449; A.G. Benjamin vs. Union of India, 1967(1) LLJ 718 and State of U.P. vs. Kaushal Kishore Shukla, 1991(1) SCC 691. Some of the propositions which can be extracted from the observations of different Courts are summarized as under:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 357 - K N Singh - Full Document

State Of Punjab And Others vs Sukhwinder Singh on 14 July, 2005

As mentioned earlier a probationer is on test and a temporary employee has no right to the post. If mere holding of an inquiry to ascertain the relevant facts for arriving at a decision on objective considerations whether to continue the employee in service or to make him permanent is treated as an inquiry "for the purpose of imposing punishment" and an order of discharge or termination of service as a result thereof "punitive in character", the 9 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 22-05-2023 16:00:43 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:072132 CWP No.11243 of 2002 (O&M) 2023:PHHC:072132 10 fundamental difference between a probationer or a temporary employee and a permanent employee would be completely obliterated, which would be wholly wrong." [8]. Similarly in State of Punjab and others vs. Rajesh Kumar (2006) 12 SCC 418, the view expressed in Sukhwinder Singh's case (supra) was followed and the appeals of the State were allowed thereby deprecating the holding of the departmental enquiry for the allegations of unauthorized absence. It was observed that once the suitability of the constable was being assessed to be his three years period of probation then the requirement of departmental enquiry is not necessary as the employer was not intending to punish the employee on account of misconduct except a simpliciter order of discharge has been passed which is not stigmatic in nature.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 153 - G P Mathur - Full Document

Sher Singh Etc. Etc vs State Of Haryana And Ors. Etc. Etc on 8 January, 1991

"7. A Full Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Sher Singh v. State of Haryana and others 1994 (1) PLR 456, has examined the content and scope of Rules 12.21, 19.3 and 19.5 of the Rules in considerable detail. It has been held in that case that the effect of the Rules is that for a period of three years a constable is under surveillance. He is being watched and is kept in close supervision. He has no right to the post and his services are terminable at any time during this period of three years. He can secure his position in the service only if he convinces the Superintendent of Police that he is likely to prove an efficient police officer. The Full Bench has further held that 7 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 22-05-2023 16:00:43 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:072132 CWP No.11243 of 2002 (O&M) 2023:PHHC:072132 8 the Rules contained the necessary guidelines for the Superintendent of Police, on the basis of which, he has to form an opinion regarding a constable. If on a consideration of the relevant material, the Superintendent of Police finds that a particular constable is not active, disciplined, selfreliant, punctual, sober, courteous or straight-forward or that he does not possess the knowledge or the technical details of the work required of him, he can reasonably form an opinion that he is not likely to prove an efficient police officer. In such a situation the Superintendent of Police can invoke his power under Rule 12.21 and can discharge the constable from the force. We are in agreement with the view taken by the Full Bench of the High Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 51 - M M Punchhi - Full Document

Superintendent Of Police, Ludhiana & ... vs Dwarka Das Etc on 28 November, 1978

In fact, this view is in consonance with the decision of this Court rendered in The Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana and another vs. Dwarka Das 1979 (1) SLR 299, where it was observed that if Rules 12.21(3) and 12.21 are read together, it will appear that the maximum period of probation in the case of a police officer of the rank of constable is three years, for the Superintendent of Police concerned has the power to discharge him within that period. It was also held that the power of discharge cannot be exercised under Rule 12.21 after the expiry of the period of three years and consequentially if it is proposed to deal with an inefficient police officer after the expiry of that period, it is necessary to do so in accordance with Chapter XVI of the Rules, which makes provisions for the imposition of various punishments including dismissal from the police force. No simple order of discharge under Rule 12.21 can be passed after the expiry of the period of three years for that will attract Article 311 of the Constitution.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 14 - P N Shinghal - Full Document

State Of Punjab & Ors vs Rajesh Kumar on 20 November, 2006

As mentioned earlier a probationer is on test and a temporary employee has no right to the post. If mere holding of an inquiry to ascertain the relevant facts for arriving at a decision on objective considerations whether to continue the employee in service or to make him permanent is treated as an inquiry "for the purpose of imposing punishment" and an order of discharge or termination of service as a result thereof "punitive in character", the 9 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 22-05-2023 16:00:43 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:072132 CWP No.11243 of 2002 (O&M) 2023:PHHC:072132 10 fundamental difference between a probationer or a temporary employee and a permanent employee would be completely obliterated, which would be wholly wrong." [8]. Similarly in State of Punjab and others vs. Rajesh Kumar (2006) 12 SCC 418, the view expressed in Sukhwinder Singh's case (supra) was followed and the appeals of the State were allowed thereby deprecating the holding of the departmental enquiry for the allegations of unauthorized absence. It was observed that once the suitability of the constable was being assessed to be his three years period of probation then the requirement of departmental enquiry is not necessary as the employer was not intending to punish the employee on account of misconduct except a simpliciter order of discharge has been passed which is not stigmatic in nature.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 38 - A R Lakshmanan - Full Document
1   2 Next