Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.20 seconds)
Sh. Santu Lal vs M/S. Delhi Transport Corporation on 27 January, 2017 cites

Himanshu Bhatt vs Indian Railway Catering And Tourism ... on 27 August, 2013

11. Ld. ARW argued alternatively on this issue.   His first argument is that service of the claimant was terminated on the basis of   misconduct   without   conducting   any   enquiry.     He   referred   to termination letter to show that his service had come to an end due to habitually violating the traffic rules.  The management was required to conduct enquiry which it did not and hence termination is bad in law.     He   relied   upon   (1).  Himanshu   Bhatt   Vs.   Indian   Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation & Ors., LPA 881/2013, decided on   28.09.2015  and   (2)  V.P.    Ahuja   Vs.   State   of   Punjab   &  Ors. decided on 09.03.2000.  Alternatively, he argued that even if service of the claimant was not terminated on misconduct, the  termination letter   is definitely  founded on  the  allegations  of  misconduct.
Delhi High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 5 - V J Mehta - Full Document

V.P. Ahuja vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 6 March, 2000

11. Ld. ARW argued alternatively on this issue.   His first argument is that service of the claimant was terminated on the basis of   misconduct   without   conducting   any   enquiry.     He   referred   to termination letter to show that his service had come to an end due to habitually violating the traffic rules.  The management was required to conduct enquiry which it did not and hence termination is bad in law.     He   relied   upon   (1).  Himanshu   Bhatt   Vs.   Indian   Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation & Ors., LPA 881/2013, decided on   28.09.2015  and   (2)  V.P.    Ahuja   Vs.   State   of   Punjab   &  Ors. decided on 09.03.2000.  Alternatively, he argued that even if service of the claimant was not terminated on misconduct, the  termination letter   is definitely  founded on  the  allegations  of  misconduct.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 218 - Full Document

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

Similarly, it was held by the Apex Court in  Dipti Prakash Banerjee Vs. Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences, Calcutta and Ors. (supra) as under :­ "21.   If   findings   were   arrived   at   in   inquiry   as   to misconduct, behind the back of the officer or without a regular departmental enquiry, the simple order of termination   is   to   be   treated   as   `founded'   on   the allegations and will be bad. But if the inquiry was not   held,   no   finding   were   arrived   at   and   the ID No. 1303/16. 10/12 employer was not inclined to conduct an inquiry but, at the same time, he did not want to continue the employee   against   whom   there   were   complaints,   it would only be a case of motive and the order would not be bad. Similar is the position if the employer did   not   want   to   inquire   into   the   truth   of   the allegations   because   of   delay   in   regular departmental proceedings or he was doubtful about securing adequate evidence. In such a circumstance, the   allegations   would   be   a   motive   and   not   the foundation   and   the   simple   order   of   termination would be valid."
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 500 - M J Rao - Full Document

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

It is the admitted position of both  parties in the present case   that   no   show­cause   notice   /   chargesheet   issued   by   the management to the claimant.   The management did not appoint any Enquiry Officer, did not issue chargesheet to the claimant and did not conduct any domestic enquiry.   The facts of this case are on better footing than the facts of     State of Punjab Vs. Sukh Raj Bahadur (supra).     In   that   case,   it   was   held   by   the   Apex   Court   that   the termination of service of workmen was not founded on allegations but   those   allegations   were   the   motive   for   the   management   to terminate their service.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 144 - G K Mitter - Full Document
1