Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (0.44 seconds)
Shamim Ahmad Laherwal vs State Of J&K & Ors on 13 December, 2016 cites

Rajasthan State Road Tranp. Corp. & Ors vs Babu Lal Jangir on 16 September, 2013

It was also held that since the premature retirement was not stigmatic in nature and such an action was based on subjective satisfaction of the Government, there was no room for importing the facet of natural justice in such a case (See Rajasthan State Road Transport Corp. v. Babu Lal Jangir para 15). Therein the Supreme Court also set out the principles in relation to the exercise of power for premature or compulsory retirement of a Government employee. The judgment has no relevance to the facts of the present case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 107 - A K Sikri - Full Document

C.D. Ailawadi vs Union Of India & Ors on 1 March, 1990

In C. D. Ailawadi v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1004: (1990) 2 SCC 328, the appellant before the Supreme Court challenged the order of his compulsory retirement on the ground that the same was based on collateral grounds. The Supreme Court, after going through the character roll of the appellant, found that the entries in his character roll for last five years prior to the date of the order impugned therein justified the decision of compulsory retirement. The Supreme Court in para 8 of the judgment, in fact, observed as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 21 - M Rangnath - Full Document

The State Of Gujarat & Anr vs Suryakant Chunilal Shah on 3 December, 1998

In State of Gujarat v. Suryakant Chunilal Shah, (1999) 1 SCC 529, the respondent before the Supreme Court was appointed as a Clerk in the office of Food Controller, Ahmadabad, and after about twenty-one years of service, he was promoted as an Assistant Food Controller (Class II) in the office of Food Controller, Ahmadabad. In 1983 certain complaints were received against him regarding permits for cement having been issued illegally by him and, therefore, he was placed under suspension and an enquiry by the State CID was ordered into the mater of issuance of bogus cement permits. On receipt of the CID enquiry report, which prima facie made out a case of issuing cement permits to bogus institutions which were not in existence in Ahmadabad, a first information report under various sections of IPC read with the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act was filed against the respondent. Another FIR was lodged against him on the same day in respect of offences committed by him by fabricating the rubber stamp of the Government and fabricating bogus permits in favour of equally bogus parties. By order dated 21.7.1988, passed under Rule 161 of the Bombay Civil Service Rules, 1959, the respondent was compulsorily retired from service in public interest. This order was challenged by him before the Gujarat High Court. Whereas the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, the Division Bench on appeal allowed the appeal as well as the writ petition. Against the judgment passed by the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court, the State of Gujarat went in appeal to the Supreme Court. The Review Committee in the case had doubted the integrity of the petitioner and it was opined that it was not advisable to continue the petitioner in service for a further period. The Supreme Court, while explaining as to what was public interest, in paragraph 11 of the judgment laid down as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 114 - Full Document

Jugal Chandra Saikia vs State Of Assam And Anr on 4 March, 2003

In Jugal Chandra Saikia v State of Assam, (2003) 4 SCC 59, the Supreme Court held that where the screening committee is consisting of responsible officers of the State and they have examined/assessed the entire service record and formed the opinion objectively as to whether an employee is fit to be retained in service or not, in absence of any allegation of mala fide, there is no scope of a judicial review against such an order. In the present case, the unfortunate aspect is that the Committee comprising of high and responsible officers, as discussed above, has not considered the entire service record of the petitioner, particularly his APRs. The case is, therefore, distinguishable on material facts.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 72 - Full Document

M.L. Binjolkar vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 July, 2005

In M. L. Binjolkar v State of M. P., (2005) 6 SCC 224, the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court is that an employer can certainly pass an order of compulsory retirement when the employee is considered to be a dead wood and practically of no utility to the employer. Here, in the instant case, the petitioner is not prematurely retired on the ground of having turned into deadwood and, therefore, being of no utility; the ground taken here for prematurely retiring the petitioner is that he is corrupt, when the service records of the petitioner, especially his APRs, speak contrary to that. The judgment cited, therefore, renders no help to the learned AAG.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 107 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Shakti Kumar Gupta vs State Of J&K on 10 February, 2016

56. Shakti Kumar Gupta v. State of J&K, AIR 2016 SC 832. This judgment governs an entirely different service. The principles laid down therein emanating from the Rules governing the higher judicial service and attributes of a judicial officer cannot be made applicable herein. Even so, as recorded in the judgment, the Full Court had found the petitioner therein to be incorrigible. That is not the case herein; there is no such finding recorded in the instant case.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next