Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.38 seconds)Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 311 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors vs Sughar Singh on 22 November, 1973
It also appears on a consideration of the averments
made in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Additional Affidavit sworn
by one of the appellants Swinder Singh on August 8, 1984,
which has not been controverted at all by the respondent,
that the respondents though terminated the services of the
petitioners on the ground that "these posts are no longer
required" have retained and regularised the service of ad-
hoc employees mentioned in paragraph 7 as well as ad-hoc
Surveyors who were recruited later in the said post of
Surveyors to the prejudice of the rights of the appellants,
thereby violating the salutary principle of equality and
non-arbitrariness and want of discrimination and as
enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of
India. It is pertinent to refer here to the decision
rendered by this Court in Sughar Singh's case where it had
been held that the order of reversion reverting the
respondent from his officiating appointment to the post of
Platoon Commander to the post of permanent Head Constable
while retaining 200 other Head Constables who were junior to
him in the officiating higher posts of Platoon Commanders
was discriminatory and arbitrary being in contravention of
the Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Shamsher Singh & Anr vs State Of Punjab on 23 August, 1974
The question whether the order terminating the service
of a probationer made according to the terms of appointment
can never amount to punishment in the facts and
circumstances of the case was considered by a Bench of 7
Judges of this Court in the case of Shamsher Singh & Anr. v.
State of Punjab, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 814. In that case the
services of two Judicial Officers who were on probation were
terminated by the Government of Punjab on the recommendation
of the High Court under Rule 7(3) in Part of the Punjab
Civil Services
1039
(Judicial Branch) Rules 1951 as amended. The services of the
A probationers were terminated without saying anything more
in the order of termination. This was challenged on the
ground that though the order on the face of it did not
attach any stigma, yet the attendant circumstances which led
to passing of the order if considered then the orders would
amount to have been made by way of punishment violating
Article 311 of the Constitution.
Parshotam Lal Dhingra vs Union Of India on 1 November, 1957
In the
case of Parshotam Lal Dhiogra v. Union of India, [1958]
S.C.R. 828 it has been observed by this court as follows :-
Manager Govt. Branch Press &. Anr vs D. B. Belliawpa on 30 November, 1978
Similar observations have been made in the case of
Manager Govt. Branch Press & Anr. v. D.B. & Belliappa [1979]
2 S.C.R. 458. It has been held that the protection of
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution will be available
even to a temporary Government servant if he has been
arbitrarily discriminated against and singled out for harsh
treatment In preference to his juniors similarly
circumstanced. In that case the service of Belliappa, a
temporary Class IV employee was terminated without assigning
any reason although in accordance with he conditions of his
service, three other employees similarly situated, junior to
Belliappa in the said
1043
temporary cadre, were retained. The order of termination was
held to be bad as it offended the equity clause in Article
14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Anoop Jaiswal vs Government Of India & Anr on 24 January, 1984
This decision was followed and relied upon in the case
of Anoop Jaiswal v. Government of India & Anr., [1984] 2
S.C.R. 369. In that case the appellant being selected for
appointment in the I.P.S. were undergoing training as a
probationer. On a particular day all the trainees arrived
late at the place where P.T./unarmed combat practice was to
be conducted, although prior intimation was sent to them in
this regard. This delay was considered as an incident which
called for an enquiry. The appellant was considered to be
one of the ring leaders who was responsible for the delay.
Explanation was called for from all the probationers. The
appellant in his explanation sincerely regretted the lapse
while denying the charge of instigating others in reporting
late. After receiving the explanations, all the probationers
including the appellant were individually interviewed in
order to ascertain the facts. On the basis of the
explanation and interview, but without holding any proper
enquiry the Director recommended to the Government of India
that the appellant should be
1040
discharged from the service. The Government accordingly
passed an order of discharge of the appellant on the ground
of unsuitability for being a member of the I.P.S. mis order
was challenged in the Writ Petition. It has been held as
follows:-
State Of Punjab & Anr vs Shri Sukh Raj Bahadur on 22 February, 1968
In the case of State of Punjab & Anr. v. Shri Sukh Raj
Bahadur, [1968]3 S.C.R. 234 the following prepositions were
laid down by this Court while considering the question
whether in case of termination of service of a temporary
servant or a probationer, Article 311(2) of the Constitution
would be affected or not. The prepositions are as follows :-
State Of Bihar & Ors vs Shiva Bhikshuk Mishra on 14 September, 1970
"So far as we are aware no such rigid principle
has ever been laid down by this Court that one has
only to look to the order and if it does not
contain any imputation of misconduct of words
attaching a stigma to the character or reputation
of a Government Officer it must be held to have
been made in the ordinary course of administrative
routine and the court is debarred from looking at
all the attendant circumstances to discover
whether the order had been made by way of
punishment. The form of the order is not
conclusive of its true nature and it might merely
be a cloak or camouflage for an order founded on
misconduct. It may be that an order which is
innocuous on the face and does not contain any
imputation of misconduct is a circumstance or a
piece of evidence for finding whether it was made
by way of punishment or
1038
administrative routine. But the entirety of
circumstances preceding or attendant on the
impugned order must be examined and the overriding
test will always be whether the misconduct is a
mere motive or is the very foundation of the
order.
1