Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.26 seconds)The State Of Orissa And Another vs Ram Narayan Das on 8 September, 1960
"The whole case-law is thus based on the peculiar facts of each individual case and it is wrong to say
that decisions have been swinging like a pendulum; right, the order is valid; left, the order is punitive.
It was urged before this Court, more than once including in Ram Chandra Trivedi case that there was a
conflict of decisions on the question of an order being a simple termination order or a punitive order,
but every time the Court rejected the contention and held that the apparent conflict was on account of
different facts of different cases requiring the principles already laid down by this Court in various
decisions to be applied to a different situation. But the concept of "motive" and "foundation" was
always kept in view.
Union Of India & Ors vs Mahaveer C.Singvi on 29 July, 2010
33] In Union of India vs Mahaveer C. Singhvi reported in (2010) 8 SCC
220, the Apex Court considered the question whether termination of the
respondent's therein, who was serving as an IFS probationer, by way of
discharge in accordance with the terms of employment was punitive. The Apex
Court referred to the principles laid down in the earlier judgments and approved
the view taken by the High Court that even though the order of discharge did
not contain any stigma, the same was not conclusive and the High Court had
rightly termed the same as punitive.
State Of Bihar & Ors vs Shiva Bhikshuk Mishra on 14 September, 1970
35] It is also interesting to note that the Apex Court in Paragraph no.45 of
that judgment held that the abstract proposition laid down in Paragraph-29 in
Pawanendra Narayan Burma versus Sanjay Gandhi, PGI of Medical Sciences
reported in (2002) 1 SCC 520, is not only contrary to the Constitution Bench
judgment of Samsher Singh (supra), but a large number of other judgments,
namely, State of Bihar vs Shiva Bhikshuk Mishara reported in (1970) 2 SCC 871,
Page No.# 36/55
Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd (supra) and Anoop Jaiswal (supra). The Apex Court,
therefore, held that the said proposition must be read as confined to the facts of
that case and cannot be relied upon for taking a view that a simple order of
termination of service can never be declared as punitive, even though it may be
found on serious allegations of misconduct or misdemeanour on the part of the
employees. Upon due examination of the entire matter, the appeal was
dismissed by the Apex Court.
Hari Singh Mann vs The State Of Punjab & Ors on 20 August, 1974
46] In Hari Singh Man vs State of Punjab and Others reported in (1975) 3
SCC 182, the Apex Court was examining an order terminating the services of
an employee on probation. The Apex Court held that the words "unfit to be
appointed" are a stigma as it will drop the authorities of the power to judge
fitness for work or suitability to the post at the time of confirmation. Termination
of services on account of inadequacy for the job or for any temperamental or
other defect not involving moral turpitude is not a stigma which can be called
Page No.# 51/55
discharge by way of punishment. Fitness for the job is one of the most
important reasons for confirmation. The Apex Court, therefore, on the facts and
circumstances of that case held that there was no stigma attached to the order
of termination.
Samsher Singh @ Shera And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 29 May, 2023
35] It is also interesting to note that the Apex Court in Paragraph no.45 of
that judgment held that the abstract proposition laid down in Paragraph-29 in
Pawanendra Narayan Burma versus Sanjay Gandhi, PGI of Medical Sciences
reported in (2002) 1 SCC 520, is not only contrary to the Constitution Bench
judgment of Samsher Singh (supra), but a large number of other judgments,
namely, State of Bihar vs Shiva Bhikshuk Mishara reported in (1970) 2 SCC 871,
Page No.# 36/55
Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd (supra) and Anoop Jaiswal (supra). The Apex Court,
therefore, held that the said proposition must be read as confined to the facts of
that case and cannot be relied upon for taking a view that a simple order of
termination of service can never be declared as punitive, even though it may be
found on serious allegations of misconduct or misdemeanour on the part of the
employees. Upon due examination of the entire matter, the appeal was
dismissed by the Apex Court.
1