Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.25 seconds)
Ravindra Singh Son Of Sri Nathi Singh vs The Zonal Manager, Life Insurance ... on 13 January, 2006 cites

Manager Govt. Branch Press &. Anr vs D. B. Belliawpa on 30 November, 1978

14. In the instant case, admittedly, the Corporation did not chose to initiate enquiry against the petitioner in respect of the allegation nor any finding of guilt is recorded and, therefore, the impugned order of termination cannot be held to be punitive or stigmatic. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the action of the respondent is arbitrary and reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of The Manager, Government Branch Press and Anr. v. D.B. Belliappa , is misplaced and is of no help to the petitioner for the reason that in that case D.B. Beliappa was appointed as temporary Government Servant and was terminated without there being any reason or cause for such termination. The same was challenged on the ground that Beliappa was picked up for the impugned action without any special reason, which could put him in a class separate from that of three juniors, who were retained in service. It appears from the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court that the counsel appearing for the appellant admitted before the Apex Court that the resolution was passed without any reason and in that background their Lordships held that the power reserved to the employer under the conditions of employment has been exercised arbitrarily. This is not the case here. In the instant case, the respondent has disclosed in their counter affidavit that the petitioner secured appointment by playing fraud with the Corporation. In the counter affidavit further the assertion of the petitioner made in para 11 of the writ petition that he was doing his job with due diligence and his performance was well to the full satisfaction of his authorities, is denied in para 9. Thus, the contention that the petitioner was subjected to discriminatory treatment and singled out is also devoid of merit and does not borne out from the record.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 299 - R S Sarkaria - Full Document

A.P. Public Service Commission vs Koneti Venkateswarulu & Ors on 30 August, 2005

In the case of A.P. Public Service Commission v. Koneti Venkateswarulu and Ors. (supra) the candidate left column 11 of the application form pertaining to previous employment totally blank and gave declaration at the end of the application that all statement made in the application are true and correct and his candidature may be cancelled at any stage if it is found incorrect. The Hon'ble Apex Court repelled the contention that there was no mala fide intention in not disclosing the full particulars and due to inadvertence on the part of the candidate disclosure of his previous employment was not made, which could not be a reason for the cancellation of his candidature. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that it is not open to the candidate to sit in the judgment about the relevance of the information called for and decide to supply it or not.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 93 - Full Document

Dharmarathmakara R .A. Ramaswamy ... vs The Educational Appellate Tribunal & ... on 20 August, 1999

5. On the other hand, Shri Manish Goyal, learned Counsel for the respondent opposed the writ petition and submitted that the petitioner having accepted the terms and conditions of selection for training is bound by the same. He further submitted that the petitioner furnished false information in the application form and deliberately withheld the informations sought from a candidate about his previous working in the Corporation as an agent. It is submitted that the petitioner was already working as an agent at Hathras Branch of the office of the Corporation since 5.7.1979 with agency code No. 3709276. He therefore made wrong declaration in the form that the information furnished by him is true and correct, which is of serious nature and this alone entails his termination from the apprenticeship as per terms of the contract. Learned Counsel for the respondent also placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of A.P. Public Service Commission v. Koneti Venkateswarulu and Ors. , Shailaja Shivajirap Patil v. President, Hon'ble Khasdar UGS Sanstha and Ors. , Kalyani Sharp India Ltd. v. Labour Court No. 1, Gwalior and Anr. , Dharmarathmakara Raibahadur Arcot Ramaswamy Mudaliar Educational Institution v. Educational Appellate Tribunal and Anr. , Life Insurance Corporation of India and Anr. v. Shri Raghavendra Seshagiri Rao Kulkarni , M. Venugopal v. Divisinal Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Machilipatnam, A.P. and Anr. , Director, Institute of Management Development, U.P. v. Smt. Pushpa Srivastava 1992 AII.L.J. 909, Parvesh Kumar Gupta v. Life Insurance Co.of India and Anr. 2003 AII.L.J. 444, Neeraj Kumar Soti and Ors. v. Life Insurance Corporation and Ors. 1997 AII.LJ. 776. It is also argued on behalf of the respondent that the claim of the petitioner that as apprentice he discharged his duties with due diligence and his performance was full of satisfaction, is not correct. It is submitted that the Manager (Sales) vide letter dated 1.11.1986 (annexure 2 to the counter affidavit) informed the petitioner about the complaint made by his Branch Manager in not taking interest in developing the area allotted to him for life insurance business and invited his comments. It is thus submitted that the order of termination was passed in terms of the letter of appointment and keeping in view Clause 6.1 of the scheme of 1980, which provides that the Apprentice Development Officer may be discharged at any time without any notice or without assigning any reason.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 80 - Full Document

Life Insurance Corporation Of India & ... vs Shri Raghavendra Seshagiri Rao ... on 14 October, 1997

5. On the other hand, Shri Manish Goyal, learned Counsel for the respondent opposed the writ petition and submitted that the petitioner having accepted the terms and conditions of selection for training is bound by the same. He further submitted that the petitioner furnished false information in the application form and deliberately withheld the informations sought from a candidate about his previous working in the Corporation as an agent. It is submitted that the petitioner was already working as an agent at Hathras Branch of the office of the Corporation since 5.7.1979 with agency code No. 3709276. He therefore made wrong declaration in the form that the information furnished by him is true and correct, which is of serious nature and this alone entails his termination from the apprenticeship as per terms of the contract. Learned Counsel for the respondent also placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of A.P. Public Service Commission v. Koneti Venkateswarulu and Ors. , Shailaja Shivajirap Patil v. President, Hon'ble Khasdar UGS Sanstha and Ors. , Kalyani Sharp India Ltd. v. Labour Court No. 1, Gwalior and Anr. , Dharmarathmakara Raibahadur Arcot Ramaswamy Mudaliar Educational Institution v. Educational Appellate Tribunal and Anr. , Life Insurance Corporation of India and Anr. v. Shri Raghavendra Seshagiri Rao Kulkarni , M. Venugopal v. Divisinal Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Machilipatnam, A.P. and Anr. , Director, Institute of Management Development, U.P. v. Smt. Pushpa Srivastava 1992 AII.L.J. 909, Parvesh Kumar Gupta v. Life Insurance Co.of India and Anr. 2003 AII.L.J. 444, Neeraj Kumar Soti and Ors. v. Life Insurance Corporation and Ors. 1997 AII.LJ. 776. It is also argued on behalf of the respondent that the claim of the petitioner that as apprentice he discharged his duties with due diligence and his performance was full of satisfaction, is not correct. It is submitted that the Manager (Sales) vide letter dated 1.11.1986 (annexure 2 to the counter affidavit) informed the petitioner about the complaint made by his Branch Manager in not taking interest in developing the area allotted to him for life insurance business and invited his comments. It is thus submitted that the order of termination was passed in terms of the letter of appointment and keeping in view Clause 6.1 of the scheme of 1980, which provides that the Apprentice Development Officer may be discharged at any time without any notice or without assigning any reason.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 62 - Full Document

M. Venugopal vs The Divisional Manager, Life Insurance ... on 31 January, 1994

5. On the other hand, Shri Manish Goyal, learned Counsel for the respondent opposed the writ petition and submitted that the petitioner having accepted the terms and conditions of selection for training is bound by the same. He further submitted that the petitioner furnished false information in the application form and deliberately withheld the informations sought from a candidate about his previous working in the Corporation as an agent. It is submitted that the petitioner was already working as an agent at Hathras Branch of the office of the Corporation since 5.7.1979 with agency code No. 3709276. He therefore made wrong declaration in the form that the information furnished by him is true and correct, which is of serious nature and this alone entails his termination from the apprenticeship as per terms of the contract. Learned Counsel for the respondent also placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of A.P. Public Service Commission v. Koneti Venkateswarulu and Ors. , Shailaja Shivajirap Patil v. President, Hon'ble Khasdar UGS Sanstha and Ors. , Kalyani Sharp India Ltd. v. Labour Court No. 1, Gwalior and Anr. , Dharmarathmakara Raibahadur Arcot Ramaswamy Mudaliar Educational Institution v. Educational Appellate Tribunal and Anr. , Life Insurance Corporation of India and Anr. v. Shri Raghavendra Seshagiri Rao Kulkarni , M. Venugopal v. Divisinal Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Machilipatnam, A.P. and Anr. , Director, Institute of Management Development, U.P. v. Smt. Pushpa Srivastava 1992 AII.L.J. 909, Parvesh Kumar Gupta v. Life Insurance Co.of India and Anr. 2003 AII.L.J. 444, Neeraj Kumar Soti and Ors. v. Life Insurance Corporation and Ors. 1997 AII.LJ. 776. It is also argued on behalf of the respondent that the claim of the petitioner that as apprentice he discharged his duties with due diligence and his performance was full of satisfaction, is not correct. It is submitted that the Manager (Sales) vide letter dated 1.11.1986 (annexure 2 to the counter affidavit) informed the petitioner about the complaint made by his Branch Manager in not taking interest in developing the area allotted to him for life insurance business and invited his comments. It is thus submitted that the order of termination was passed in terms of the letter of appointment and keeping in view Clause 6.1 of the scheme of 1980, which provides that the Apprentice Development Officer may be discharged at any time without any notice or without assigning any reason.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 253 - N P Singh - Full Document

Director, Institute Of Management ... vs Smt. Pushpa Srivastava on 4 August, 1992

5. On the other hand, Shri Manish Goyal, learned Counsel for the respondent opposed the writ petition and submitted that the petitioner having accepted the terms and conditions of selection for training is bound by the same. He further submitted that the petitioner furnished false information in the application form and deliberately withheld the informations sought from a candidate about his previous working in the Corporation as an agent. It is submitted that the petitioner was already working as an agent at Hathras Branch of the office of the Corporation since 5.7.1979 with agency code No. 3709276. He therefore made wrong declaration in the form that the information furnished by him is true and correct, which is of serious nature and this alone entails his termination from the apprenticeship as per terms of the contract. Learned Counsel for the respondent also placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of A.P. Public Service Commission v. Koneti Venkateswarulu and Ors. , Shailaja Shivajirap Patil v. President, Hon'ble Khasdar UGS Sanstha and Ors. , Kalyani Sharp India Ltd. v. Labour Court No. 1, Gwalior and Anr. , Dharmarathmakara Raibahadur Arcot Ramaswamy Mudaliar Educational Institution v. Educational Appellate Tribunal and Anr. , Life Insurance Corporation of India and Anr. v. Shri Raghavendra Seshagiri Rao Kulkarni , M. Venugopal v. Divisinal Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Machilipatnam, A.P. and Anr. , Director, Institute of Management Development, U.P. v. Smt. Pushpa Srivastava 1992 AII.L.J. 909, Parvesh Kumar Gupta v. Life Insurance Co.of India and Anr. 2003 AII.L.J. 444, Neeraj Kumar Soti and Ors. v. Life Insurance Corporation and Ors. 1997 AII.LJ. 776. It is also argued on behalf of the respondent that the claim of the petitioner that as apprentice he discharged his duties with due diligence and his performance was full of satisfaction, is not correct. It is submitted that the Manager (Sales) vide letter dated 1.11.1986 (annexure 2 to the counter affidavit) informed the petitioner about the complaint made by his Branch Manager in not taking interest in developing the area allotted to him for life insurance business and invited his comments. It is thus submitted that the order of termination was passed in terms of the letter of appointment and keeping in view Clause 6.1 of the scheme of 1980, which provides that the Apprentice Development Officer may be discharged at any time without any notice or without assigning any reason.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 316 - S Mohan - Full Document

Parshotam Lal Dhingra vs Union Of India on 1 November, 1957

9. The contention that the impugned order is not termination simplicitor, rather punitive and, therefore, the same could not have been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing or show cause is also devoid of merit and cannot be accepted in the facts of the case. By letter dated 13.5.1985 the petitioner was offered appointment as Apprentice Development Officer, with clear stipulation that his appointment could be terminated at any time without any notice. In turn he accepted and joined the training knowing fully well that his services can be terminated without notice and, therefore, the order of termination being in terms of the letter of appointment there can be no exception to it. Even the scheme under which the petitioner was given appointment, as Apprentice Development Officer, provides that he can be discharged from apprenticeship at any time without assigning any reason or without any notice. The respondent though could have initiated further action against the petitioner in view of the declaration made by him in the application form but they decided only to dispense with his apprenticeship and, therefore, they did not initiate inquiry and as such the impugned order cannot be held to be punitive or stigmatic. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the, case of Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India AIR 1958 SC 36 held that mere use of expressions like 'terminate' or 'discharge' is not conclusive and in spite of the use of such expressions, the court may determine the true nature of the order to ascertain whether the action taken against government servant is punitive in nature. Their Lordships further laid down two tests to find out the nature of the order, viz., (1) whether the temporary government servant had a right to the post or the rank or (2) whether he has been visited with evil consequences. Their Lordships further held that if either of the tests is satisfied, the order of termination of a temporary government servant can be said to be by way of punishment. In the case in hand the petitioner was selected for training as Apprentice Development Officer under the Scheme. Clause 6.1 of the Scheme of 1980 itself provides that an Apprentice Development Officer may be discharged at any time without any notice or without any reason whatsoever. Clause 6.1 is extracted below for ready reference:
Supreme Court of India Cites 46 - Cited by 809 - Full Document
1