Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.24 seconds)Article 311 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Parshotam Lal Dhingra vs Union Of India on 1 November, 1957
8. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of PURSHOTAM LAL
DHINGRA V. UNION OF INDIA, AIR 1958 SC has opined as under
State Election Commissioner, Bihar ... vs Janakdhari Prasad . on 3 July, 2018
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of THE STATE OF
BIHAR V/S GOPIKRISHORE PRASAD, AIR 1960 SC has held that
a termination founded on inefficiency or other disqualification is a
punishment because "it puts indelible stigma on the officer affecting
his future career". The word 'stigma' would relate to conduct or
character of an employee. Stigma according to dictionary meaning
is something that detracts from the character or reputation of a
person, a mark sign etc indicating that something is not considered
normal or standard. It is a blemish, defect, disgrace, disrepute,
imputation, mark of disgrace or shame and mark or label indicating
deviation from a norm. In the context of an order of termination or
compulsory retirement of a Government servant, stigma would
9
O.A.060/00070/2018
mean a statement in the order indicating his misconduct or lack of
integrity.
Dipti Prakash Banerjee vs Satvendra Nath Bose National Centre For ... on 10 February, 1999
10. This aspect has been examined by Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of DIPTI PRAKASH BANERJEE V. SATYENDRA NATH
BOSE NATIONAL CENTRE FOR BASIC SCIENCES, CALCUTTA
AND OTHERS (1999) 3 SCC 60, holding as follows:
Chandra Prakash Shahi vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 25 April, 2000
To buttress their stand, the respondents cite the case of State of
Punjab and Ors. Vs. Sh. Sukh Raj Bahadur, (1970) ILLJ 373 SC
and further state that the case cited by the applicant in Chandra
Prakash (supra) is not relevant to the case of the applicant. The
respondents also cite CAT Principal Bench order in OA No.
3478/2009 wherein the Bench had held as follows:-
Madan Gopal vs State Of Punjab on 27 August, 1962
If there is an enquiry the facts and circumstances
of the case will be looked into in order to find out whether the order
is one of dismissal in substance, (See Madan Gopal v. State of
Punjab [1963] 3 S.C.R. 716) = (AIR 1963 SC 531).
Kunwar Arun Kumar vs U.P. Hill Electronic Corporation Ltd. & ... on 28 October, 1996
13. It has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
KUNWAR ARUN KUMAR V/S U.P.HILL ELECTRONICS
CORPORATION LTD., AND OTHERS (1997) 2 SCC 191 that
recording of unsatisfactory performance is not stigmatic and reason
mentioned in the order was motive and not the foundation.
State Of Bihar vs Gopi Kishore Prasad on 25 November, 1959
In State of
Bihar V. Gopi Kishore Prasad, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 689 it was said that
if the Government proceeded against the probationer in the direct
way without casting any aspersion on his honesty or competence,
his discharge would not have the effect of removal by way of
punishment. Instead of taking the easy courser, the Government
chose the more difficult one of starting proceedings against him
and branding him as a dishonest and incompetent officer.
State Of Punjab & Anr vs Shri Sukh Raj Bahadur on 22 February, 1968
To buttress their stand, the respondents cite the case of State of
Punjab and Ors. Vs. Sh. Sukh Raj Bahadur, (1970) ILLJ 373 SC
and further state that the case cited by the applicant in Chandra
Prakash (supra) is not relevant to the case of the applicant. The
respondents also cite CAT Principal Bench order in OA No.
3478/2009 wherein the Bench had held as follows:-
1