Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.49 seconds)
State Of Telangana vs Smt. Charu Sinah, I.P.S., on 26 April, 2019 cites

State Of West Bengal & Ors vs Nazrul Islam on 13 October, 2011

37. Also admittedly inspite of the pendency of the criminal case, the respondents had obeyed the order of the Administrative Tribunal dt.16-4-2014 in OA.No.5574/2013 and sent the petitioner for training from 01.06.2017, (after they also agreed before the Tribunal on 11-2-2016 to send the petitioner for training and an order was passed by the Tribunal on that day in C.A.No.206 of 2015), till they halted it from 18.01.2018. It is not a case where in ignorance of his alleged involvement in the criminal case, he was sent for training. Therefore, the above decision in Nazrul Islam (1 supra) does not apply to the case of the petitioner.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 62 - A K Patnaik - Full Document

State Of Punjab And Others vs Sukhwinder Singh on 14 July, 2005

did not adhere to discipline and good conduct there. As already stated it is not the case of the respondents that there was any misconduct committed by the petitioner during training or that his performance during training was not satisfactory at all. It is their case that the alleged misconduct occurred at the time of the written examination held on 13.09.2009 long before the training commenced. So the decision in Sukhwinder Singh (2 supra) has not application to the instant case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 153 - G P Mathur - Full Document

Samsher Singh And Another vs State Of Punjab And Others on 7 November, 2017

In Radhy Shyam Gupta Vs. U.P. State Agro Industries Corporation Limited and Another3, the Supreme Court held after considering all the earlier cases including the 7 Judge Bench decision in Samsher Singh Vs. State of Punjab4 and Gujarat Steel Tube Limited Vs. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha5 that a termination effected because the master is satisfied of the misconduct and of the consequent desirability of terminating the service of the delinquent servant, is a dismissal, even if he had the right in law to terminate with an innocent order under the standing order or otherwise. Whether, in such a case the grounds are recorded in a different proceeding from the formal order does not detract from its nature. Nor the fact that, after being satisfied of the guilt, the master abandons the enquiry and proceeds to terminate. Given an alleged misconduct and a live nexus between it and the termination of service, 3 (1999) 2 SCC 21 4 (1974) 2 SCC 831 5 (1980) 2 SCC 593 MSR,J ::15:: W.P.No.4640 of 2018 and batch.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 53 - Full Document

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

In Radhy Shyam Gupta Vs. U.P. State Agro Industries Corporation Limited and Another3, the Supreme Court held after considering all the earlier cases including the 7 Judge Bench decision in Samsher Singh Vs. State of Punjab4 and Gujarat Steel Tube Limited Vs. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha5 that a termination effected because the master is satisfied of the misconduct and of the consequent desirability of terminating the service of the delinquent servant, is a dismissal, even if he had the right in law to terminate with an innocent order under the standing order or otherwise. Whether, in such a case the grounds are recorded in a different proceeding from the formal order does not detract from its nature. Nor the fact that, after being satisfied of the guilt, the master abandons the enquiry and proceeds to terminate. Given an alleged misconduct and a live nexus between it and the termination of service, 3 (1999) 2 SCC 21 4 (1974) 2 SCC 831 5 (1980) 2 SCC 593 MSR,J ::15:: W.P.No.4640 of 2018 and batch.
Supreme Court of India Cites 60 - Cited by 777 - V R Iyer - Full Document

Dipti Prakash Banerjee vs Satvendra Nath Bose National Centre For ... on 10 February, 1999

In Dipti Prakash Banerjee Vs. Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences, Calcutta and others6 the Supreme Court again explained in what circumstances an order of termination of a probationer can be said to be punitive and observed that it depends upon whether the allegations which are the cause of the termination are the motive or foundation. It observed that if findings were arrived at in an enquiry as to misconduct, behind the 6 (1999) 3 SCC 60 MSR,J ::16:: W.P.No.4640 of 2018 and batch.
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 500 - M J Rao - Full Document
1   2 Next