Chandra Prakash Shahi vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 25 April, 2000
In Chandra Prakash Shahi v. State of
U.P. [(2000) 5 SCC 152], the Supreme Court explained the concept
of motive and foundation in respect of probationer as under:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.23 seconds)Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd vs Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha on 19 November, 1979
The Supreme
Court in Ratnesh Kumar Choudhary (supra) thereafter referred to
the above quoted observations from Gujarat Still Tubes Limited
(supra) terming them as instructive.
Radhey Shyam Gupta vs U.P. State Agro Industries Corporation ... on 15 December, 1998
5.5 In Ratnesh Kumar Choudhary (supra) also the
Supreme Court considered its own various decisions on the aspect
and after referring to the decision in Radhey Shyam Gupta v. U.P.
State Agro Industries Corpn. Ltd. [(1999) 2 SCC 21] observed
that the proposition of law operating two ways. In certain cases of
temporary servants and probationers if the inquiry undertaken about
the very conduct forms the motive of termination order, then the
termination could not be said to be punitive merely because
principles of natural justice have not been followed. In such
circumstances, without becoming stigmatic, the employer can
exercise its right to terminate service of the employee concerned. In
the other line of decisions, the Supreme Court has ruled that if the
facts revealed in the inquiry or from the narration of the order itself
Page 6 of 11
Downloaded on : Sat Sep 28 01:58:17 IST 2019
C/SCA/11947/2019 CAV JUDGMENT
that the inquiry into the conduct was not the motive but it was a
foundation and the allegation of misconduct considered against
employee becomes foundation of termination of service of
temporary servant or probationer, such action would become
punitive and it would make the order legally unsound.
Manishbhai Nayanbhai Mod vs Vadodara Municipal Corporation on 9 August, 2017
"4.1 ... ... ... The above act on part of the competent authority of appellant -
Corporation was not only stigmatic, but contrary to law laid down by the Apex
Court to which reference is made by learned Single Judge and distinguishing the
facts of the present case it was found that termination was punitive. As a
necessary corollary, when there is a breach of procedure of instituting full-
fledged departmental inquiry, particularly, when termination order referred to
following of Gujarat Civil Services [Discipline & Appeal] Rules, 1971, the
issuance of show cause notice, receiving reply and then to take final decision to
terminate services of an employee was unjust, unreasonable, arbitrary, in breach
of the Rules, 1971, violative of principles of natural justice and Article 14 of the
Constitution as it would not make any difference whether the employee was
appointed temporarily for a fixed term on a fixed salary incorporating various
conditions."
Sandip Ajitsinh Vaghela vs State Of Gujarat on 7 August, 2018
5.8 In another decision in Sandip Ajitsinh Vaghela v. State
of Gujarat being Special Civil Application No.12071 of 2018
decided on 26th February, 2019 the same question had arisen where
also the petitioner was Junior Clerk employed on temporary basis.
Rahul Aydanbhai Vank vs State Of Gujarat on 5 September, 2018
5.9 The aforesaid decision in Rahul Aydanbhai Vank
(supra) was also confirmed in Letters Patent Appeal No.841 of
2019.
Chaitanya Prakash & Anr vs H.Omkarappa on 12 January, 2010
"8. Even decision relied by learned Assistant Government Pleader in the case
of Chaitanya Prakash and Another v. H. Omlarappa reported in (2010) 2
SCC 623 quotes decision in the case of Pavanendra Narayan Verma vs.
Sanjay Gandhi PGI of Medical Sciences [(2002) 1 SCC 520] where three
tests are enumerated to determine whether in substance an order of termination
is punitive or not. We find in the present case all above tests namely a full
scale formal inquiry, allegation involving moral turpitude or misconduct and
culminating into guilt stands satisfied and therefore we have no hesitation to
hold that the learned Single Judge committed no error of fact or law or
jurisdiction warranting interference in this appeal under Clause 15 of the
Letters Patent."
Pavanendra Narayan Verma vs Sanjay Gandhi P.G.I. Of Medical Sci. & ... on 5 November, 2001
"8. Even decision relied by learned Assistant Government Pleader in the case
of Chaitanya Prakash and Another v. H. Omlarappa reported in (2010) 2
SCC 623 quotes decision in the case of Pavanendra Narayan Verma vs.
Sanjay Gandhi PGI of Medical Sciences [(2002) 1 SCC 520] where three
tests are enumerated to determine whether in substance an order of termination
is punitive or not. We find in the present case all above tests namely a full
scale formal inquiry, allegation involving moral turpitude or misconduct and
culminating into guilt stands satisfied and therefore we have no hesitation to
hold that the learned Single Judge committed no error of fact or law or
jurisdiction warranting interference in this appeal under Clause 15 of the
Letters Patent."