Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.19 seconds)
Tonymon Joseph vs M/O Railways on 9 August, 2019 cites

Pavanendra Narayan Verma vs Sanjay Gandhi P.G.I. Of Medical Sci. & ... on 5 November, 2001

6. On the contrary, respondents have submitted that appointment order was issued by Assistant Divisional Personnel Officer and termination order was issued by Assistant Divisional Engineer, who are of the same rank as that of Appointing Authority. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the order at Annexure A-5. Therefore, we are of this view that, if appointing authority has passed an order, nothing wrong in it. Though, the Rule 301 definition too has clearly stipulated, which having authorities direction, but that does not mean appointing authority cannot pass the order. So, this contention failed to convince us and same is not accepted. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in Pavanendra Narayan Verma v. Sanjay Gandhi PGI of Medical Sciences and another (2002) 1 SCC 520. The termination whether simpliciter or punitive three factor tests to be 8 O.A No. 180/610/17 determined has been discussed. He has drawn our attention to para 12, 13 and 14 and tried to convince that termination order passed because the applicant is punitive in nature and without holding enquiry. Lastly, the main contention made by the applicant that order passed by the respondents is punitive in nature.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 367 - R Pal - Full Document

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

In Dipti Prakash Banerjee v. Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences, Calcutta and others (1999) 3 SCC 60, the Supreme Court explained the meaning of the words 'motive' and 'foundation' on which innocuous order of termination is passed. If findings were arrived at in an enquiry as to misconduct, behind the back of the officer or without a regular departmental enquiry, the simple order of termination is to be treated as founded on the allegations and will be bad. Similar is the position, if the employer did not want to enquire into the truth of the allegations because of delay in regular departmental proceedings or he was doubtful about securing adequate evidence. In such a circumstance, the allegations would be a motive and not the foundation and the simple order of termination would be valid. In this case, no enquiry was held and therefore, the simple termination cannot be termed as illegal. It is submitted that the termination of the services of a temporary servant or one on probation, on the basis of adverse entries or on the basis of an assessment that his work is not satisfactory 7 O.A No. 180/610/17 will not be punitive in as much as the above facts are merely the motive and not the foundation.
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 500 - M J Rao - Full Document
1