Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.20 seconds)
Bishan Dass Son Of Mani Ram vs The Punjab Dairy Development ... on 15 July, 2009 cites

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

He further submitted that since the major penalty was imposed upon the Regular Second Appeal No.2494 of 1993 9 plaintiff (now appellant) by way of reverting him to the lower post, without holding a regular departmental enquiry against him, the same was liable to be set aside. He further submitted that even the order dated 15.12.1982, was the result of non-application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. In the order impugned, the designation of the plaintiff (now appellant) was mentioned as Sales Officer, whereas, he was promoted as Purchase Officer and never worked as Sales Officer. He also placed reliance on Dipti Prakash Banerjee v. Satvendra Nath Bose National Centre for Basic Science, Calcutta and others, AIR 1999 (Supreme Court) 983, Anoop Jaiswal v. Government of India, 1984 LLJ 337, Smt. Rajinder Kaur v. Punjab State, AIR 1986 (SC) 1790, Punjab State v. Smt. Kamlesh Kumar, 1988(1) SLR 614 (Pb. & Har.
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 500 - M J Rao - Full Document

Sukhbans Singh vs State Of Punjab on 6 April, 1962

It is only on the basis of the reports of those officers that the competent authority can come to the conclusion, as to whether the work and conduct of the employee during the course probation period, was satisfactory or otherwise. In the instant case, no doubt, in letter Ex.PW5/29, certain lapses of the plaintiff (now appellant) were indicated and he was directed to explain the same. However, that letter was not made the basis of the order dated 15.12.1982. The principle of law, laid down in S. Sukhbans Singh's case (supra), decided by a Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court, was to the effect that a probationer cannot, after the expiry of probationary period, automatically acquire the status of a permanent member of a service, unless of course the rule under which he was appointed expressly provide for such a result. A probationer officiating, in a higher post, who continues to be such without being reverted after the expiry of the period of probation has no legal right to the higher post in which he is officiating, but merely becomes eligible for being absorbed in the higher Regular Second Appeal No.2494 of 1993 16 post as a permanent member. He still continues to be a probationer, and can be reverted to his original post, under the service rules, even without assigning any reason, if his work is found to be unsatisfactory. The provisions of Article 311 (2) do not apply to such a situation.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 117 - J R Mudholkar - Full Document

State Of Punjab & Anr vs Shri Sukh Raj Bahadur on 22 February, 1968

In State of Punjab and another's case (supra), decided by a three Judges Bench, of the Apex Court, Sukh Raj Bahadur, who was on probation as Extra Assistant Commissioner, being posted as Inspector, Local Bodies, Jullundur Division and Assistant to Commissioner, Jullundur Division, was charge sheeted for his mis-conduct, during the period of probation. He filed reply to the said charge sheet. No further proceedings were initiated. He was, however, reverted to his Regular Second Appeal No.2494 of 1993 17 substantive post. In these circumstances, the Apex Court held that the order reverting him to the substantive post, did not visit him with evil consequences, nor was it stigmatic, nor the said charge sheet was made the basis for his reversion, to the substantive post and, as such, the same could not be said to have been passed by way of punishment. It was also held that the provisions of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India, did not apply to the case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 144 - G K Mitter - Full Document

The State Of Orissa And Another vs Ram Narayan Das on 8 September, 1960

In The State of Orissa and another's case (supra), a case decided by a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court, a show cause notice was given to a Sub Inspector, on probation, as to why his services should not be terminated. The notice consisted of two parts, (1) relating to ten heads of "gross neglect of duty and unsatisfactory work" and (2) "suspicious and upolicemanlike conduct" in which specific instances of fabrication of public records and acceptance of illegal gratification were set out. A formal order was communicated to the respondent, stating therein, that he was discharged from service for unsatisfactory work and conduct. In Regular Second Appeal No.2494 of 1993 18 these circumstances, it was held by the Apex Court that the show cause notice, which was given to the official, indicating therein, the incidents of gross neglect of duty, fabrication of public records and acceptance of illegal gratification, was only for ascertaining whether he should be confirmed or his employment was required to be terminated. In these circumstances, it was held that prima-facie, the order was one terminating employment of the official as a probationer, and it was not an order dismissing him from service. It was also held that it was not passed by way of punishment. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable to the facts of the instant case. Since the order, in this case, was passed reverting the plaintiff (now appellant) to his substantive post of Senior Scale Stenographer as his work and conduct as Purchase Officer was not found to be satisfactory, during the period of probation, it could not be said to have been passed by way of punishment. There is, no dispute, with the principle of law, laid down in Dipti Prakash Banerjee's, Anoop Jaiswal's, Smt. Regular Second Appeal No.2494 of 1993 19 Rajinder Kaur's, Punjab State's, and Rakesh Kumar's cases (supra) relied upon by the Counsel for the appellant, that if the order discharging or terminating the service of an employee, during the period of his probation, is passed on the basis of his mis-conduct, then such an order could not be said to be an innocuous order, but the one which visits the employee with evil consequences, and, thus, could only be passed after holding a full- fledged enquiry. However, the facts of the aforesaid cases, are clearly distinguishable, from the facts of the instant case. In the instant case, as stated above, the order dated 15.12.1982, reverting the plaintiff (now appellant) to the substantive post having been passed, only on the ground, that his work and conduct was not found to be satisfactory, could not be said to have visited him with evil consequences and, as such, the provisions of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India, were not at all violated. No help, therefore, can be drawn by the Counsel for the appellant, from the ratio of law, laid down, in these cases, as the facts thereof, are completely Regular Second Appeal No.2494 of 1993 20 distinguishable, from the facts of the instant case. The judgments and decrees, rendered by the Courts below holding the order dated 15.12.1982, Ex.PW5/22, as legal and valid, do not suffer from any illegality or perversity. The same are liable to be upheld.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 211 - J C Shah - Full Document
1