Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.27 seconds)
Whether Reporters Of Local Papers May Be ... vs State Of Gujarat on 28 April, 2000 cites

Union Of India And Anr vs Lt Col P.K. Choudhary And Ors on 15 February, 2016

In Union of India v. Col. J.N. Sinha, AIR 1971 SC 40, the Supreme Court has explained 'public interest' and observed that the object of premature retirement of a Government servant is to weed out the inefficient, corrupt, dishonest employees from the Government service. The public interest in relation to public administration means that only honest and efficient persons are to be retained in service while the services of the dishonest or the corrupt or who are almost deadwood, are to be dispensed with.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 177 - T S Thakur - Full Document

Gian Singh Mann vs The High Court Of Punjab And Haryana And ... on 22 August, 1980

In Gian Singh Mann v. High Court of Punjab & Haryana, (1980) 4 SCC 266, it was pointed out that the expression 'public interest' in the context of premature retirement has a well-settled meaning. It refers to cases where the interests of public administration require the retirement of a Government servant who with the passage of years has prematurely ceased to possess the standard of efficiency, competency and utility called for by the Government service to which he belongs.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 180 - R S Pathak - Full Document

Kailash Chandra Agarwal vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Anr. on 29 June, 1987

In Kailash Chandra Agarwal v. State of M.P., (1987) 3 SCC 513, it was pointed out that the order of compulsory retirement, if taken in public interest, could not be treated as a major punishment and that Article 311 (2) of the Constitution could not be invoked, as the employee concerned was no longer fit in public interest to continue in service and, therefore, he was compulsorily retired.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 17 - Full Document

Union Of India Etc vs M.E. Reddy And Anr on 19 September, 1979

In Union of India v. M.E. Reddy, (1980) 2 SCC 15, it was pointed out that the object of compulsory retirement was to weed out the deadwood in order to maintain a high standard of efficiency and initiative in service. Rule 16 (3) of the All-India (Death-cum-Retirement) Rules, 1958, empowered the Government to compulsorily retire officers of doubtful integrity. The safety valve of public interest was the most powerful and the strongest safeguard against any abuse or colourable exercise of power under that Rule.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 110 - S M Ali - Full Document

The State Of Gujarat & Anr vs Suryakant Chunilal Shah on 3 December, 1998

24. So far as the judgment relied upon by Mr. Oza is concerned in that case the employee - Suryakant Chunilal Shah - was ordered to be compulsorily retired since FIR was lodged against him. He challenged the said order before the learned Single Judge of this Court who rejected the petition by holding that the order of compulsory retirement is just and valid. Against the said order the petitioner moved the Division Bench of this Court by filing Letters Patent Appeal and the said Letters Patent Appeal came to be allowed by quashing and setting aside the order of compulsory retirement passed against the petitioner. The State of Gujarat went in appeal before the Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petition. After referring to the catena of previous judgments of the Supreme Court, the Bench has made following weighty observations:
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 134 - Full Document
1