Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 31 (0.26 seconds)Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd vs Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha on 19 November, 1979
23. An identical questions came to be decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the Ratnesh Kumar Choudhary Vs. Indira Gandhi Institute of
Medical Sciences, Patna, connected OA Bihar and Others JT 2015 (9)
363, wherein having considered the ration of law laid down in previous
judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases Samsher Singh v. State
of Punjab (1974) 2 SCC 831, Radhey Shyam Gupta vs. U.P. State
Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. and Another (1999) 2 SCC 21,
State of U.P. vs. Kaushal Kishore Shukla (1991) 1 SCC 691,
Triveni Shankar Saxena vs. State of U.P.(1992) Supp (1) SCC 524,
State of U.P. vs. Prem Lata Misra (1994) 4 SCC 189, Samsher Singh
(supra), Parshotam Lal Dhingra vs. Union of India AIR 1958 SC
36, State of Bihar vs. Gopi Kishore Prasad AIR 1960 SC 689, State
of Orissa vs. Ram Narayan Das AIR 1961 SC 177, Gujarat Steel
Tubes Ltd. vs. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha (1980) 2 SCC
593, Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. vs. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor
Sabha (1980) 2 SCC 593, Anoop Jaiswal vs. Govt. of India (1984) 2
SCC 369, Nepal Singh vs. State of U.P. (1980) 3 SCC 288, Commissioner,
Food & Civil Supplies vs. Prakash Chandra Saxena (1994) 5 SCC 177,
Commissioner, Food & Civil Supplies vs. Prakash Chandra Saxena (1994) 5
SCC 177, Chandra Prakash Shahi vs. State of U.P. and Others (2000) 5 SCC
152, Union of India and Others vs. Mahaveer C. Singhvi (2010) 8 SCC 220,
Dipti Prakash Banerjee vs. Satyendra Nath Bose National connected OA
Centre for Basic Sciences (1999) 3 SCC 60, Pavanendra Narayan Verma
vs. Sanjay Gandhi P.G.I. of Medical Sciences and Another (2002) 1 SCC
520] and State Bank of India and Others vs. Palak Modi and Another
(2013) 3 SCC 607, it was ruled by the Apex Court that if the termination
order is stigmatic and based or founded upon misconduct, would be a
punitive order and court can lift the veil and declare that in the garb of
termination simplicitor, the employer has punished an employee, for an
act of misconduct. It was also held that if a probationer is discharged on
the ground of misconduct or inefficiency or for similar reason, without a
proper enquiry and without his getting a reasonable opportunity of
showing cause against the termination, it may amount to removal from
service within the meaning of Article 311 (2). Hence, a show cause notice
was required to be issued and opportunity of being heard has to be
provided to such employees in departmental enquiry before passing any
adverse order. In the absence of which, the termination order would be
inoperative and non-est in the eyes of law.
Commissioner, Food And Civil Supplies vs Prakash C. Saxena on 5 May, 1994
23. An identical questions came to be decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the Ratnesh Kumar Choudhary Vs. Indira Gandhi Institute of
Medical Sciences, Patna, connected OA Bihar and Others JT 2015 (9)
363, wherein having considered the ration of law laid down in previous
judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases Samsher Singh v. State
of Punjab (1974) 2 SCC 831, Radhey Shyam Gupta vs. U.P. State
Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. and Another (1999) 2 SCC 21,
State of U.P. vs. Kaushal Kishore Shukla (1991) 1 SCC 691,
Triveni Shankar Saxena vs. State of U.P.(1992) Supp (1) SCC 524,
State of U.P. vs. Prem Lata Misra (1994) 4 SCC 189, Samsher Singh
(supra), Parshotam Lal Dhingra vs. Union of India AIR 1958 SC
36, State of Bihar vs. Gopi Kishore Prasad AIR 1960 SC 689, State
of Orissa vs. Ram Narayan Das AIR 1961 SC 177, Gujarat Steel
Tubes Ltd. vs. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha (1980) 2 SCC
593, Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. vs. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor
Sabha (1980) 2 SCC 593, Anoop Jaiswal vs. Govt. of India (1984) 2
SCC 369, Nepal Singh vs. State of U.P. (1980) 3 SCC 288, Commissioner,
Food & Civil Supplies vs. Prakash Chandra Saxena (1994) 5 SCC 177,
Commissioner, Food & Civil Supplies vs. Prakash Chandra Saxena (1994) 5
SCC 177, Chandra Prakash Shahi vs. State of U.P. and Others (2000) 5 SCC
152, Union of India and Others vs. Mahaveer C. Singhvi (2010) 8 SCC 220,
Dipti Prakash Banerjee vs. Satyendra Nath Bose National connected OA
Centre for Basic Sciences (1999) 3 SCC 60, Pavanendra Narayan Verma
vs. Sanjay Gandhi P.G.I. of Medical Sciences and Another (2002) 1 SCC
520] and State Bank of India and Others vs. Palak Modi and Another
(2013) 3 SCC 607, it was ruled by the Apex Court that if the termination
order is stigmatic and based or founded upon misconduct, would be a
punitive order and court can lift the veil and declare that in the garb of
termination simplicitor, the employer has punished an employee, for an
act of misconduct. It was also held that if a probationer is discharged on
the ground of misconduct or inefficiency or for similar reason, without a
proper enquiry and without his getting a reasonable opportunity of
showing cause against the termination, it may amount to removal from
service within the meaning of Article 311 (2). Hence, a show cause notice
was required to be issued and opportunity of being heard has to be
provided to such employees in departmental enquiry before passing any
adverse order. In the absence of which, the termination order would be
inoperative and non-est in the eyes of law.
Anoop Jaiswal vs Government Of India & Anr on 24 January, 1984
Indeed, we cannot accept this contention of learned counsel for the
respondents, in view of ratio of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court
in case Anoop Jaiswal Vs. Government of India and Another (1984) 2 SCC
369 wherein it was ruled that even in case of probationer, court can go
beyond the formal order of discharge to find the real cause of action.
Simple order of discharge of probationer on ground of unsuitability passed
before his completion of probation period, which is based on
report/recommendation of the concerned authority, indicating
commission of alleged misconduct by the probationer, then order is
punitive in nature, which in the absence of any proper enquiry amounted
to violation of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India.
Parshotam Lal Dhingra vs Union Of India on 1 November, 1957
23. An identical questions came to be decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the Ratnesh Kumar Choudhary Vs. Indira Gandhi Institute of
Medical Sciences, Patna, connected OA Bihar and Others JT 2015 (9)
363, wherein having considered the ration of law laid down in previous
judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases Samsher Singh v. State
of Punjab (1974) 2 SCC 831, Radhey Shyam Gupta vs. U.P. State
Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. and Another (1999) 2 SCC 21,
State of U.P. vs. Kaushal Kishore Shukla (1991) 1 SCC 691,
Triveni Shankar Saxena vs. State of U.P.(1992) Supp (1) SCC 524,
State of U.P. vs. Prem Lata Misra (1994) 4 SCC 189, Samsher Singh
(supra), Parshotam Lal Dhingra vs. Union of India AIR 1958 SC
36, State of Bihar vs. Gopi Kishore Prasad AIR 1960 SC 689, State
of Orissa vs. Ram Narayan Das AIR 1961 SC 177, Gujarat Steel
Tubes Ltd. vs. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha (1980) 2 SCC
593, Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. vs. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor
Sabha (1980) 2 SCC 593, Anoop Jaiswal vs. Govt. of India (1984) 2
SCC 369, Nepal Singh vs. State of U.P. (1980) 3 SCC 288, Commissioner,
Food & Civil Supplies vs. Prakash Chandra Saxena (1994) 5 SCC 177,
Commissioner, Food & Civil Supplies vs. Prakash Chandra Saxena (1994) 5
SCC 177, Chandra Prakash Shahi vs. State of U.P. and Others (2000) 5 SCC
152, Union of India and Others vs. Mahaveer C. Singhvi (2010) 8 SCC 220,
Dipti Prakash Banerjee vs. Satyendra Nath Bose National connected OA
Centre for Basic Sciences (1999) 3 SCC 60, Pavanendra Narayan Verma
vs. Sanjay Gandhi P.G.I. of Medical Sciences and Another (2002) 1 SCC
520] and State Bank of India and Others vs. Palak Modi and Another
(2013) 3 SCC 607, it was ruled by the Apex Court that if the termination
order is stigmatic and based or founded upon misconduct, would be a
punitive order and court can lift the veil and declare that in the garb of
termination simplicitor, the employer has punished an employee, for an
act of misconduct. It was also held that if a probationer is discharged on
the ground of misconduct or inefficiency or for similar reason, without a
proper enquiry and without his getting a reasonable opportunity of
showing cause against the termination, it may amount to removal from
service within the meaning of Article 311 (2). Hence, a show cause notice
was required to be issued and opportunity of being heard has to be
provided to such employees in departmental enquiry before passing any
adverse order. In the absence of which, the termination order would be
inoperative and non-est in the eyes of law.
Union Of India & Ors vs Mahaveer C.Singvi on 29 July, 2010
23. An identical questions came to be decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the Ratnesh Kumar Choudhary Vs. Indira Gandhi Institute of
Medical Sciences, Patna, connected OA Bihar and Others JT 2015 (9)
363, wherein having considered the ration of law laid down in previous
judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases Samsher Singh v. State
of Punjab (1974) 2 SCC 831, Radhey Shyam Gupta vs. U.P. State
Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. and Another (1999) 2 SCC 21,
State of U.P. vs. Kaushal Kishore Shukla (1991) 1 SCC 691,
Triveni Shankar Saxena vs. State of U.P.(1992) Supp (1) SCC 524,
State of U.P. vs. Prem Lata Misra (1994) 4 SCC 189, Samsher Singh
(supra), Parshotam Lal Dhingra vs. Union of India AIR 1958 SC
36, State of Bihar vs. Gopi Kishore Prasad AIR 1960 SC 689, State
of Orissa vs. Ram Narayan Das AIR 1961 SC 177, Gujarat Steel
Tubes Ltd. vs. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha (1980) 2 SCC
593, Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. vs. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor
Sabha (1980) 2 SCC 593, Anoop Jaiswal vs. Govt. of India (1984) 2
SCC 369, Nepal Singh vs. State of U.P. (1980) 3 SCC 288, Commissioner,
Food & Civil Supplies vs. Prakash Chandra Saxena (1994) 5 SCC 177,
Commissioner, Food & Civil Supplies vs. Prakash Chandra Saxena (1994) 5
SCC 177, Chandra Prakash Shahi vs. State of U.P. and Others (2000) 5 SCC
152, Union of India and Others vs. Mahaveer C. Singhvi (2010) 8 SCC 220,
Dipti Prakash Banerjee vs. Satyendra Nath Bose National connected OA
Centre for Basic Sciences (1999) 3 SCC 60, Pavanendra Narayan Verma
vs. Sanjay Gandhi P.G.I. of Medical Sciences and Another (2002) 1 SCC
520] and State Bank of India and Others vs. Palak Modi and Another
(2013) 3 SCC 607, it was ruled by the Apex Court that if the termination
order is stigmatic and based or founded upon misconduct, would be a
punitive order and court can lift the veil and declare that in the garb of
termination simplicitor, the employer has punished an employee, for an
act of misconduct. It was also held that if a probationer is discharged on
the ground of misconduct or inefficiency or for similar reason, without a
proper enquiry and without his getting a reasonable opportunity of
showing cause against the termination, it may amount to removal from
service within the meaning of Article 311 (2). Hence, a show cause notice
was required to be issued and opportunity of being heard has to be
provided to such employees in departmental enquiry before passing any
adverse order. In the absence of which, the termination order would be
inoperative and non-est in the eyes of law.
Radhey Shyam Gupta vs U.P. State Agro Industries Corporation ... on 15 December, 1998
23. An identical questions came to be decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the Ratnesh Kumar Choudhary Vs. Indira Gandhi Institute of
Medical Sciences, Patna, connected OA Bihar and Others JT 2015 (9)
363, wherein having considered the ration of law laid down in previous
judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases Samsher Singh v. State
of Punjab (1974) 2 SCC 831, Radhey Shyam Gupta vs. U.P. State
Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. and Another (1999) 2 SCC 21,
State of U.P. vs. Kaushal Kishore Shukla (1991) 1 SCC 691,
Triveni Shankar Saxena vs. State of U.P.(1992) Supp (1) SCC 524,
State of U.P. vs. Prem Lata Misra (1994) 4 SCC 189, Samsher Singh
(supra), Parshotam Lal Dhingra vs. Union of India AIR 1958 SC
36, State of Bihar vs. Gopi Kishore Prasad AIR 1960 SC 689, State
of Orissa vs. Ram Narayan Das AIR 1961 SC 177, Gujarat Steel
Tubes Ltd. vs. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha (1980) 2 SCC
593, Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. vs. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor
Sabha (1980) 2 SCC 593, Anoop Jaiswal vs. Govt. of India (1984) 2
SCC 369, Nepal Singh vs. State of U.P. (1980) 3 SCC 288, Commissioner,
Food & Civil Supplies vs. Prakash Chandra Saxena (1994) 5 SCC 177,
Commissioner, Food & Civil Supplies vs. Prakash Chandra Saxena (1994) 5
SCC 177, Chandra Prakash Shahi vs. State of U.P. and Others (2000) 5 SCC
152, Union of India and Others vs. Mahaveer C. Singhvi (2010) 8 SCC 220,
Dipti Prakash Banerjee vs. Satyendra Nath Bose National connected OA
Centre for Basic Sciences (1999) 3 SCC 60, Pavanendra Narayan Verma
vs. Sanjay Gandhi P.G.I. of Medical Sciences and Another (2002) 1 SCC
520] and State Bank of India and Others vs. Palak Modi and Another
(2013) 3 SCC 607, it was ruled by the Apex Court that if the termination
order is stigmatic and based or founded upon misconduct, would be a
punitive order and court can lift the veil and declare that in the garb of
termination simplicitor, the employer has punished an employee, for an
act of misconduct. It was also held that if a probationer is discharged on
the ground of misconduct or inefficiency or for similar reason, without a
proper enquiry and without his getting a reasonable opportunity of
showing cause against the termination, it may amount to removal from
service within the meaning of Article 311 (2). Hence, a show cause notice
was required to be issued and opportunity of being heard has to be
provided to such employees in departmental enquiry before passing any
adverse order. In the absence of which, the termination order would be
inoperative and non-est in the eyes of law.
State Of Uttar Pradesh And Anr vs Kaushal Kishore Shukla on 11 January, 1991
23. An identical questions came to be decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the Ratnesh Kumar Choudhary Vs. Indira Gandhi Institute of
Medical Sciences, Patna, connected OA Bihar and Others JT 2015 (9)
363, wherein having considered the ration of law laid down in previous
judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases Samsher Singh v. State
of Punjab (1974) 2 SCC 831, Radhey Shyam Gupta vs. U.P. State
Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. and Another (1999) 2 SCC 21,
State of U.P. vs. Kaushal Kishore Shukla (1991) 1 SCC 691,
Triveni Shankar Saxena vs. State of U.P.(1992) Supp (1) SCC 524,
State of U.P. vs. Prem Lata Misra (1994) 4 SCC 189, Samsher Singh
(supra), Parshotam Lal Dhingra vs. Union of India AIR 1958 SC
36, State of Bihar vs. Gopi Kishore Prasad AIR 1960 SC 689, State
of Orissa vs. Ram Narayan Das AIR 1961 SC 177, Gujarat Steel
Tubes Ltd. vs. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha (1980) 2 SCC
593, Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. vs. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor
Sabha (1980) 2 SCC 593, Anoop Jaiswal vs. Govt. of India (1984) 2
SCC 369, Nepal Singh vs. State of U.P. (1980) 3 SCC 288, Commissioner,
Food & Civil Supplies vs. Prakash Chandra Saxena (1994) 5 SCC 177,
Commissioner, Food & Civil Supplies vs. Prakash Chandra Saxena (1994) 5
SCC 177, Chandra Prakash Shahi vs. State of U.P. and Others (2000) 5 SCC
152, Union of India and Others vs. Mahaveer C. Singhvi (2010) 8 SCC 220,
Dipti Prakash Banerjee vs. Satyendra Nath Bose National connected OA
Centre for Basic Sciences (1999) 3 SCC 60, Pavanendra Narayan Verma
vs. Sanjay Gandhi P.G.I. of Medical Sciences and Another (2002) 1 SCC
520] and State Bank of India and Others vs. Palak Modi and Another
(2013) 3 SCC 607, it was ruled by the Apex Court that if the termination
order is stigmatic and based or founded upon misconduct, would be a
punitive order and court can lift the veil and declare that in the garb of
termination simplicitor, the employer has punished an employee, for an
act of misconduct. It was also held that if a probationer is discharged on
the ground of misconduct or inefficiency or for similar reason, without a
proper enquiry and without his getting a reasonable opportunity of
showing cause against the termination, it may amount to removal from
service within the meaning of Article 311 (2). Hence, a show cause notice
was required to be issued and opportunity of being heard has to be
provided to such employees in departmental enquiry before passing any
adverse order. In the absence of which, the termination order would be
inoperative and non-est in the eyes of law.
Triveni Shankar Saxena vs State Of U.P. And Others on 20 December, 1991
23. An identical questions came to be decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the Ratnesh Kumar Choudhary Vs. Indira Gandhi Institute of
Medical Sciences, Patna, connected OA Bihar and Others JT 2015 (9)
363, wherein having considered the ration of law laid down in previous
judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases Samsher Singh v. State
of Punjab (1974) 2 SCC 831, Radhey Shyam Gupta vs. U.P. State
Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. and Another (1999) 2 SCC 21,
State of U.P. vs. Kaushal Kishore Shukla (1991) 1 SCC 691,
Triveni Shankar Saxena vs. State of U.P.(1992) Supp (1) SCC 524,
State of U.P. vs. Prem Lata Misra (1994) 4 SCC 189, Samsher Singh
(supra), Parshotam Lal Dhingra vs. Union of India AIR 1958 SC
36, State of Bihar vs. Gopi Kishore Prasad AIR 1960 SC 689, State
of Orissa vs. Ram Narayan Das AIR 1961 SC 177, Gujarat Steel
Tubes Ltd. vs. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha (1980) 2 SCC
593, Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. vs. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor
Sabha (1980) 2 SCC 593, Anoop Jaiswal vs. Govt. of India (1984) 2
SCC 369, Nepal Singh vs. State of U.P. (1980) 3 SCC 288, Commissioner,
Food & Civil Supplies vs. Prakash Chandra Saxena (1994) 5 SCC 177,
Commissioner, Food & Civil Supplies vs. Prakash Chandra Saxena (1994) 5
SCC 177, Chandra Prakash Shahi vs. State of U.P. and Others (2000) 5 SCC
152, Union of India and Others vs. Mahaveer C. Singhvi (2010) 8 SCC 220,
Dipti Prakash Banerjee vs. Satyendra Nath Bose National connected OA
Centre for Basic Sciences (1999) 3 SCC 60, Pavanendra Narayan Verma
vs. Sanjay Gandhi P.G.I. of Medical Sciences and Another (2002) 1 SCC
520] and State Bank of India and Others vs. Palak Modi and Another
(2013) 3 SCC 607, it was ruled by the Apex Court that if the termination
order is stigmatic and based or founded upon misconduct, would be a
punitive order and court can lift the veil and declare that in the garb of
termination simplicitor, the employer has punished an employee, for an
act of misconduct. It was also held that if a probationer is discharged on
the ground of misconduct or inefficiency or for similar reason, without a
proper enquiry and without his getting a reasonable opportunity of
showing cause against the termination, it may amount to removal from
service within the meaning of Article 311 (2). Hence, a show cause notice
was required to be issued and opportunity of being heard has to be
provided to such employees in departmental enquiry before passing any
adverse order. In the absence of which, the termination order would be
inoperative and non-est in the eyes of law.
State Of U.P. And Another State Of U.P. ... vs Km. Prem Lata Misra And Others on 21 April, 1994
23. An identical questions came to be decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the Ratnesh Kumar Choudhary Vs. Indira Gandhi Institute of
Medical Sciences, Patna, connected OA Bihar and Others JT 2015 (9)
363, wherein having considered the ration of law laid down in previous
judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases Samsher Singh v. State
of Punjab (1974) 2 SCC 831, Radhey Shyam Gupta vs. U.P. State
Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. and Another (1999) 2 SCC 21,
State of U.P. vs. Kaushal Kishore Shukla (1991) 1 SCC 691,
Triveni Shankar Saxena vs. State of U.P.(1992) Supp (1) SCC 524,
State of U.P. vs. Prem Lata Misra (1994) 4 SCC 189, Samsher Singh
(supra), Parshotam Lal Dhingra vs. Union of India AIR 1958 SC
36, State of Bihar vs. Gopi Kishore Prasad AIR 1960 SC 689, State
of Orissa vs. Ram Narayan Das AIR 1961 SC 177, Gujarat Steel
Tubes Ltd. vs. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha (1980) 2 SCC
593, Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. vs. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor
Sabha (1980) 2 SCC 593, Anoop Jaiswal vs. Govt. of India (1984) 2
SCC 369, Nepal Singh vs. State of U.P. (1980) 3 SCC 288, Commissioner,
Food & Civil Supplies vs. Prakash Chandra Saxena (1994) 5 SCC 177,
Commissioner, Food & Civil Supplies vs. Prakash Chandra Saxena (1994) 5
SCC 177, Chandra Prakash Shahi vs. State of U.P. and Others (2000) 5 SCC
152, Union of India and Others vs. Mahaveer C. Singhvi (2010) 8 SCC 220,
Dipti Prakash Banerjee vs. Satyendra Nath Bose National connected OA
Centre for Basic Sciences (1999) 3 SCC 60, Pavanendra Narayan Verma
vs. Sanjay Gandhi P.G.I. of Medical Sciences and Another (2002) 1 SCC
520] and State Bank of India and Others vs. Palak Modi and Another
(2013) 3 SCC 607, it was ruled by the Apex Court that if the termination
order is stigmatic and based or founded upon misconduct, would be a
punitive order and court can lift the veil and declare that in the garb of
termination simplicitor, the employer has punished an employee, for an
act of misconduct. It was also held that if a probationer is discharged on
the ground of misconduct or inefficiency or for similar reason, without a
proper enquiry and without his getting a reasonable opportunity of
showing cause against the termination, it may amount to removal from
service within the meaning of Article 311 (2). Hence, a show cause notice
was required to be issued and opportunity of being heard has to be
provided to such employees in departmental enquiry before passing any
adverse order. In the absence of which, the termination order would be
inoperative and non-est in the eyes of law.