Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.62 seconds)State Of U.P. And Anr vs Bihari Lal on 5 September, 1994
In State of U.P. & Anr. v. Bihari Lal (supra), this Court has
ruled that before exercise of the power to retire an employee
compulsorily from service, the authority has to take into consideration
the overall record, even including some of the adverse remarks,
though for technical reasons, might have been expunged on appeal or
revision. What is emphasised in the said decision is that in the absence
of any mala fide exercise of power or arbitrary exercise of power, a
possible different conclusion would not be a ground for interference by
Page No.# 20/26
the Court/Tribunal in exercise of its power of judicial review. According
to this Court, what is needed to be looked into is whether a bona fide
decision is taken in the public interest to augment efficiency in the
public service.
Mrs. Maneka Gandhi vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 25 January, 1978
"17. In our opinion, every entry in the ACR of a public servant
must be communicated to him within a reasonable period,
whether it is a poor, fair, average, good or very good entry. This is
because non-communication of such an entry may adversely
affect the employee in two ways: (1) Had the entry been
communicated to him he would know about the assessment of his
work and conduct by his superiors, which would enable him to
improve his work in future (2) He would have an opportunity of
making a representation against the entry if he feels it is
unjustified, and pray for its upgradation. Hence non-
communication of an entry is arbitrary, and it has been held by
the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Maneka Gandhi
(supra) that arbitrariness violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
Baikuntha Nath Das And Anr vs Chief Distt. Medical Officer, Baripada ... on 19 February, 1992
The bench in the
said case made reference to Baikuntha Nath Das vs. Chief District
Medical Officer, Baripada (1992) 2 SCC 299, as well as Posts and
Telegraphs Board vs. C.S.N. Murthy, (1992) 2 SCC 317, and after
reiterating, with approval, the principles stated therein, has laid down
firm proposition of law that an order of compulsory retirement is not
liable to be quashed by a Court merely on the showing that while
passing it, uncommunicated adverse remarks was also taken into
consideration. Applying the ratio laid down in the above-mentioned
two cases to the facts of the present cases, this Court finds that the
authorities concerned was justified in relying upon the adverse entry
made against the two appellants and the deceased officer in the year
2000 indicating that his integrity was doubtful alongwith other
materials. Here in these cases, the ACRs for the year 2000 was
communicated to the three officers but before they could exercise the
option given to them to make representation against the same, the
orders of compulsory retirement was passed. When an
uncommunicated adverse entry can be taken into consideration, while
passing order of compulsory retirement, there is no reason to hold that
adverse entry communicated, against which opportunity of making
representation is denied, cannot be taken into consideration at the
time of passing order of compulsory retirement. Merely because the
two appellants and the deceased officer had no opportunity to make
representation against the said entry or that the representation made
against the same was pending, would not render consideration of the
said entry illegal, in any manner, whatsoever.
Post And Telegraph Board And Ors vs C.S.N. Murthy on 26 March, 1992
The bench in the
said case made reference to Baikuntha Nath Das vs. Chief District
Medical Officer, Baripada (1992) 2 SCC 299, as well as Posts and
Telegraphs Board vs. C.S.N. Murthy, (1992) 2 SCC 317, and after
reiterating, with approval, the principles stated therein, has laid down
firm proposition of law that an order of compulsory retirement is not
liable to be quashed by a Court merely on the showing that while
passing it, uncommunicated adverse remarks was also taken into
consideration. Applying the ratio laid down in the above-mentioned
two cases to the facts of the present cases, this Court finds that the
authorities concerned was justified in relying upon the adverse entry
made against the two appellants and the deceased officer in the year
2000 indicating that his integrity was doubtful alongwith other
materials. Here in these cases, the ACRs for the year 2000 was
communicated to the three officers but before they could exercise the
option given to them to make representation against the same, the
orders of compulsory retirement was passed. When an
uncommunicated adverse entry can be taken into consideration, while
passing order of compulsory retirement, there is no reason to hold that
adverse entry communicated, against which opportunity of making
representation is denied, cannot be taken into consideration at the
time of passing order of compulsory retirement. Merely because the
two appellants and the deceased officer had no opportunity to make
representation against the said entry or that the representation made
against the same was pending, would not render consideration of the
said entry illegal, in any manner, whatsoever.
Dev Dutt vs Union Of India & Ors on 12 May, 2008
7. A three Judge Bench of this Court in Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar
(supra), followed Dev Dutt (supra). In paragraph 8 of the report, this
Court with reference to the case under consideration held as under:
U.P. Jal Nigam & Others vs Prabhat Chandra Jain & Others on 31 January, 1996
A two
Judge Bench on elaborate and detailed consideration of the matter and
also after taking into consideration the decision of this Court in U.P. Jal
Nigam v. Prabhat Chandra Jain, (1996) 2 SCC 363, and principles of
natural justice exposited by this Court from time to time particularly in
A.K. Praipak v. Union of India, (1969) 2 SCC 262; Maneka Gandhi v.
Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248; Union of India v. Tulsi Ram Patel,
(1985) 3 SCC 398; Canara Bank v. V.K. Awasthy, (2005) 6 SCC 321,
and State of Maharashtra v. Public Concern for Governance Trust,
(2007) 3 SCC 587, concluded that every entry in the ACR of a public
service must be communicated to him within a reasonable period
whether it is poor, fair, average, good or very good entry.
A. K. Kraipak & Ors. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors on 29 April, 1969
A two
Judge Bench on elaborate and detailed consideration of the matter and
also after taking into consideration the decision of this Court in U.P. Jal
Nigam v. Prabhat Chandra Jain, (1996) 2 SCC 363, and principles of
natural justice exposited by this Court from time to time particularly in
A.K. Praipak v. Union of India, (1969) 2 SCC 262; Maneka Gandhi v.
Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248; Union of India v. Tulsi Ram Patel,
(1985) 3 SCC 398; Canara Bank v. V.K. Awasthy, (2005) 6 SCC 321,
and State of Maharashtra v. Public Concern for Governance Trust,
(2007) 3 SCC 587, concluded that every entry in the ACR of a public
service must be communicated to him within a reasonable period
whether it is poor, fair, average, good or very good entry.
Canara Bank vs V.K. Awasthy on 31 March, 2005
A two
Judge Bench on elaborate and detailed consideration of the matter and
also after taking into consideration the decision of this Court in U.P. Jal
Nigam v. Prabhat Chandra Jain, (1996) 2 SCC 363, and principles of
natural justice exposited by this Court from time to time particularly in
A.K. Praipak v. Union of India, (1969) 2 SCC 262; Maneka Gandhi v.
Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248; Union of India v. Tulsi Ram Patel,
(1985) 3 SCC 398; Canara Bank v. V.K. Awasthy, (2005) 6 SCC 321,
and State of Maharashtra v. Public Concern for Governance Trust,
(2007) 3 SCC 587, concluded that every entry in the ACR of a public
service must be communicated to him within a reasonable period
whether it is poor, fair, average, good or very good entry.
State Of Maharashtra vs Public Concern For Governance Trust & ... on 4 January, 2007
A two
Judge Bench on elaborate and detailed consideration of the matter and
also after taking into consideration the decision of this Court in U.P. Jal
Nigam v. Prabhat Chandra Jain, (1996) 2 SCC 363, and principles of
natural justice exposited by this Court from time to time particularly in
A.K. Praipak v. Union of India, (1969) 2 SCC 262; Maneka Gandhi v.
Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248; Union of India v. Tulsi Ram Patel,
(1985) 3 SCC 398; Canara Bank v. V.K. Awasthy, (2005) 6 SCC 321,
and State of Maharashtra v. Public Concern for Governance Trust,
(2007) 3 SCC 587, concluded that every entry in the ACR of a public
service must be communicated to him within a reasonable period
whether it is poor, fair, average, good or very good entry.