Radhey Shyam Gupta vs U.P. State Agro Industries Corporation ... on 15 December, 1998
In the case of Radhey Shyam Gupta v. U.P. State Agro
Industries Corporation Ltd. & Anr., AIR1999SC609 the Supreme
Court had held as follows :
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.36 seconds)The State Of Orissa And Another vs Ram Narayan Das on 8 September, 1960
In State of Orissa v. Ram Narayan Das: (1961)ILLJ552SC it
was held by the Supreme Court that one should look into the 'object
or purpose of the enquiry' and not merely hold the termination to be
punitive because of an antecedent enquiry. Whether the order of
termination amounts to an order of dismissal depends upon the
nature of the enquiry, if any, the proceedings taken therein and the
substance of the final order passed on such enquiry. On the facts of
that case, the termination of a probationer was upheld by the
Supreme Court since it was concluded that the purpose of the
enquiry was not to find out if the concerned employee was guilty of
any misconduct, negligence, inefficiency or other disqualification,
but instead the purpose of the inquiry was to find out if the
employee could be confirmed.
Pavanendra Narayan Verma vs Sanjay Gandhi P.G.I. Of Medical Sci. & ... on 5 November, 2001
17. As held in Pavanendra Narayan Verma (supra), firstly it is
imperative to ascertain the 'nature of enquiry' i.e. whether the
termination was preceded by a full scale formal enquiry into the
allegations of misconduct on the part of the employee concerned,
which culminated in the finding of guilt. It is clear that in the
WP (C) 1007/2012 Page 12 of 15
present facts and circumstances no such inquiry specifying any
allegations of misconduct against the petitioner were initiated. It is
also not the case of the petitioner that he had been made party to
the above mentioned inquiry wherein a finding of his guilt had been
arrived at. Secondly, perusal of the above stated communication
also reveals that the „purpose of the enquiry', was to inquire into the
alleged irregularities/malpractices in the recruitments to the post of
MT Drivers, Electricians and Vehicle Mechanics in BRO committed
by the Recruitment Boards and officers in certain centers, and not
the candidates including the petitioner who had appeared for the
same. It is further stipulated in the communication that a decision
was taken to vitiate the selection due the malpractices and to
initiate action against Officers who were responsible for vitiating the
selection process for the tests especially at Rishikesh and Pune
centers. It is also evident that the entire selection has been
cancelled and thus it is not the petitioner alone who had been
terminated pursuant to the said enquiry, but in fact all the
candidates who had appeared for the said recruitment had been
terminated as well. The petitioner also has been unsuccessful in
contenting any cogent grounds for substantiating his plea that the
impugned order has cast a stigma on him.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Union Of India And Another vs Shri Nand Kishor Aggarwal And Another on 3 November, 2008
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on a decision
of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Union of India v.
Nand Kishor Aggarwal & Anr., 155 (2008) DLT 202 wherein the
Division Bench had noted that as per the law laid down by the
Supreme Court, if the termination is punitive in nature, an enquiry is
required to be held and the principles of natural justice are required
to be followed. But where the discharge order and the motive for the
discharge is simply unsatisfactory work, then the discharge being
discharge simplicitor, there is no necessity of holding a departmental
enquiry.
1