Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.28 seconds)
Vineet Kumar vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 9 January, 2018 cites

Shamsher Singh & Anr vs State Of Punjab on 23 August, 1974

27. The question whether the order terminating the service of a probationer made according to the terms of appointment can never amount to punishment in the facts and circumstances of the case was considered by a Bench of 7 Judges of this Court in the case of Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab, (1975) 1 SCR 814: (AIR 1974 SC 2192). In that case the services of two Judicial Officers who were on probation were terminated by the Government of Punjab on the recommendation of the High Court under R. 7(3) in Part D of the Punjab Civil Services (Judicial Branch) Rules 1951 as amended. The services of the probationers were terminated without saying anything more in the order of termination. This was challenged on the ground that though the order on the face of it did not attach any stigma, yet the attendant circumstances which led to passing of the order if considered then the orders would amount to have been made by way of punishment violating Art.311 of the Constitution.
Supreme Court of India Cites 110 - Cited by 317 - A N Ray - Full Document

Anoop Jaiswal vs Government Of India & Anr on 24 January, 1984

(28). This decision was followed and relied upon in the case of Anoop Jaiswal v. Govt. of India, (1984) 2 SCR 453: (AIR 1984 SC 636). In that case the appellant being seleced for appointment in the L.P.S. was undergoing training as a probationer. On a particular day all the trainees arrived late at the place where P.T./unarmed combat practice was to be conducted, although prior intimation was sent to them in this regard. This delay was considered as an incident which called for an enquiry. This appellant was considered to be one of the ring leaders who was responsible for the delay. Explanation was called for from all the probationers. The appellant in his explanation sincerely regretted the lapse while denying the charge of instigating others in reporting late. After receiving the explanations, all the probationers including the appellant were individually interviewed in order to ascertain the facts. On the basis of the explanation and interview, but without holding any proper enquiry the Director recommended to the Government of India that the appellant should be discharged from the service. The Government accordingly passed an order of discharge of the appellant on the ground of unsuitability for being a member of the I.P.C. This order was challenged in the Writ Petition, it has been held as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 303 - E S Venkataramiah - Full Document

Jarnail Singh & Ors. Etc vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 7 May, 1986

After consideration of the rival submissions, it is clear that after going through the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Jarnail Singh (supra), it is clear that where an employee, temporary, probationer, adhoc, contractual, etc., is removed from service as per the contract of service/terms of appointments, there is no requirement of compliance of Article 311 of the Constitution of India, but if the termination of his services is founded on misconduct, negligence, inefficiency or other disqualification, then it is a punishment and the requirements of Article 311 must be complied with.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 613 - B C Ray - Full Document
1