Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.20 seconds)
Swaran Singh Bamal vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 19 May, 2020 cites

Narasingh Patnaik vs State Of Orissa on 2 April, 1996

Learned counsel has further referred to the judgments passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Narasingh Patnaik vs. State of Orissa, 1996 (2) SCT 635 and by this Court in Risal Singh vs. State of Haryana, 2003 (2) SCT 992 to contend that if, no adverse remarks have been conveyed for the last 15 years preceding the date of order, they will be deemed to be wiped out by virtue of promotion. If the case is not referred the Officers Committee, impugned decision is vitiated by arbitrariness and legal mala fides. After promotion, the performance of later years has to be given more importance.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 14 - S C Agrawal - Full Document

Risal Singh vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 13 May, 2014

Learned counsel has further referred to the judgments passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Narasingh Patnaik vs. State of Orissa, 1996 (2) SCT 635 and by this Court in Risal Singh vs. State of Haryana, 2003 (2) SCT 992 to contend that if, no adverse remarks have been conveyed for the last 15 years preceding the date of order, they will be deemed to be wiped out by virtue of promotion. If the case is not referred the Officers Committee, impugned decision is vitiated by arbitrariness and legal mala fides. After promotion, the performance of later years has to be given more importance.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 44 - D Misra - Full Document

The State Of Punjab vs Gurdas Singh on 31 March, 1998

Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has referred to the judgments passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State of U.P. vs. Vijay Kumar Jain, 2002 (2) SCT 408; State of Punjab vs. Gurdas Singh etc., 1998 (2) SCT 165 and another judgment passed by this Court in Jarnail 3 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 06-06-2020 23:52:32 ::: CWP No.18372 of 1995 (O&M) -4- Singh vs. State of Haryana, 2007 (1) SCT 492 on the point that the competent authority has an absolute right to retire any Government employee on attaining the age of 50 years to weed out the Government servant in the public interest, if he has out lived his utility in service. The order can be challenged only on the ground of arbitrariness and mala fide exercise of power. Even old and stale adverse entries regarding integrity in the record with emphasis on the later entries, can be taken into consideration for compulsorily retirement of an employee. The order cannot be set aside merely on the ground that only last 10 years old entries regarding integrity are to be taken into consideration.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 88 - Full Document

Jarnail Singh vs State Of Haryana on 1 July, 2013

In another judgment passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court Jarnail Singh's case (supra), it has been held that once there is an entry of 'integrity doubtful' in the service record of an employee, it is considered to be in larger public interest to retire such an employee in terms of Rules 5.32- A (C) and 3.26 (d) of Punjab Civil Service Rules. In para nos. 13 and 14 of the judgment, it has been observed as under:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 389 - J S Khehar - Full Document
1