Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.22 seconds)
Sanjeev Kumar Age 23 Yrs. S/O Sh. Mohan ... vs Union Of India Through Home Secretary on 18 July, 2022 cites

Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd vs Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha on 19 November, 1979

In Gujrat Steel Tubes Ltd. Vs. Gujrat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha (AIR 1980 SC 1876) Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer as his lordship then was), speaking for the majority, for the first time, expounded the doctrine of lifting of the veil to see the true nature of the order, i.e. whether the discharge orders issued by the management were punitive or non-penal.
Supreme Court of India Cites 60 - Cited by 777 - V R Iyer - Full Document

Union Of India & Ors vs Sukhen Chandra Das on 15 October, 2008

In 2008 (17) SCC 125 [Union of India & Ors versus Sukhen Chandra Dass], also relied by Ld. Counsel for respondents, Hon‟ble Supreme Court held, that there was no necessity to hold departmental enquiry against respondent in termination of his services as temporary employee a constable of CRPF who was terminated in terms of Rule 16 of Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules 1965 r/w Rule 5 (1) & 14-B of the Rules of 1965 for the reasons that the employee had willfully suppressed registration of criminal 20 SWP No. 1757/2002 cases against him at the time of verification. The case laws (Supra) relied by Ld. Counsel for respondents make it manifestly clear, that a temporary employee in CRPF Force if found not fit to continue as effective member of the force for the reasons of health problem or criminal cases registered against him, the termination was held legally justified. Arguments of Ld. Counsel for respondents that the petitioner in the case in hand has been terminated on the ground of his being surplus in the force is not in consonance with the principles of law deduced in the case laws (Supra) relied upon by him, the same are repelled, rejected and discarded. The impugned order of termination dated 27-04-2002 depicts that the services of petitioner have been terminated forthwith. Respondents have not assigned any reasons for termination of the petitioner who being a temporary employee is also protected under the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India and could not have been terminated without conducting proper enquiry. Respondents have invoked Rule 5 of Central Services (Temporary Services) Rules 1965 and Rule 16 of CRPF Rules. It is settled position of law, that special rules will always override the general law. The general law can only be invoked once the rules are silent. Admittedly, the petitioner was governed by Rule 16 of CRPF Rules for the purpose of ordering his termination. Rule 16 of CRPF Rules contemplates that all the members of force shall be enrolled for a period of 3 years and during this period of engagement, they shall be liable to be discharge at any time on one months notice by the appointing authority. In the case in hand, petitioner who has completed 16 weeks of his training period, has yet to complete 3 years, and he could have been discharged by invoking Rule 16 of the CRPF Rules provided he was given one months notice. The respondents (Respondent No.5) instead have invoked Rule 5 of Central Services (Temporary Services) Rule 1965 by giving pay and allowance for the period of notice. This in my considered opinion could not be done by the respondents. The petitioner is strictly governed by Rule 16 of CRPF Rules which envisages one month‟s prior notice before ordering his discharge. This has not been followed in the present case. No enquiry was held against the petitioner nor he was given an opportunity of being heard. The impugned order of termination against the petitioner, therefore, is violative of Articles 14, 16 & 311 of the Constitution of India and unsustainable in the eyes of law.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 17 - L S Panta - Full Document
1   2 Next