Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.31 seconds)Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850
Sirsi Municipality By Its President ... vs Cecelia Kom Francis Tellis on 18 January, 1973
12. The learned Standing Counsel has cited the case of Sirsi
Municipality v. Cecelia Kom Frances Tellis, reported in 1973(3) SCR
348 to say that in such case the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that
termination or dismissal of what is described as a pure contract of
master and servant is not declared to be a nullity however wrongful and
illegal it may be. The reason is that dismissal in breach of contract is
remedied by damages.
Executive Committee Of U.P. State ... vs Chandra Kiran Tyagi on 8 September, 1969
The same principle was also followed in the case
of Executive Committee of U.P. State Warehousing Corporation Limited
v. Chandra Kiran Tyagi, (1970) 2 SCR 250 and also in the case of Indian
Airlines Corporation v. Sukhdeo Rai, 1971 (2) SCC 192, further submits
5
2024:MLHC:920
the learned Standing Counsel.
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Indian Airlines Corporation vs Sukhdeo Rai on 27 April, 1971
The same principle was also followed in the case
of Executive Committee of U.P. State Warehousing Corporation Limited
v. Chandra Kiran Tyagi, (1970) 2 SCR 250 and also in the case of Indian
Airlines Corporation v. Sukhdeo Rai, 1971 (2) SCC 192, further submits
5
2024:MLHC:920
the learned Standing Counsel.
Abdul Motaleb vs Garo Hills District Council And Anr. on 2 May, 1960
17. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent/GHADC has
not been able to show from the records that before the said termination
order was passed the petitioner was subjected to a proper enquiry to
allow the concerned authorities to come to a finding necessitating his
termination. Though reliance was placed in the authority of the case of
Abdul Motaleb(supra) to say that as far as the issue of termination from
service of an employee of the GHADC vis-à-vis the case of an employee
under the State or Union Government, is concerned, there cannot be any
comparison as the provision of Article 311 of the Constitution of India
will not be applicable to an employee of the GHADC, the ruling never
suggested that the principle of natural justice as far as the applicability
of the principles of service jurisprudence is concerned will not be
applicable in matters of employment.
1