Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 27 (0.11 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Government Of Tamil Nadu & Ors vs Badrinath & Ors on 15 October, 1987
The appellant filed a writ petition in 1978 and the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on 23.1.79 on the ground that the refusal to grant permission was justified. The appellant filed an appeal before the Division Bench in 1978 which was allowed on 20.12.84 holding that the refusal to grant sanction was not justified and ought to have been given in public interest. The State of Tamil Nadu filed appeal to the Supreme Court. This Court held in State of Tamil Nadu v. Badrinath AIR 1987 SC 2381 that, no sanction was necessary inasmuch as the speech was not made by the appellant in discharge of his official functions. This Court held that appellant could go ahead with his suit already filed against Mr. V. Karthikeyan without seeking permission of Government.
Brij Mohan Singh Chopra vs State Of Punjab on 11 March, 1987
In fact on the second point the three Judge Bench overruled the two Judge Bench judgment in Brij Mohan Singh Chopra v. State of Punjab 1987(2) SCC 188 and also another judgment in Baidyanath Mohapatra v. State of Orissa 1989(4) SCC 664. It was held that the view taken in these two latter cases decided by two Judge Benches that uncommunicated adverse remarks could not be relied upon if no opportunity for a representation was given or no decision was taken on the representation, was not correct. This aspect is covered by paras 24 to 30 of the judgment of the three Judge Bench.
K. Chandru Etc.Etc vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Ors on 10 July, 1985
62. There is yet another important aspect. The appellant had produced various Reports which showed his academic qualities and he repeatedly requested the government to give weight to these reports. The State had benefited therefrom and even the Supreme Court appreciated these reports in K. Chandru v. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 1986 SC 204. But the respondents 1,3 and 4 were extremely adamant and were not inclined to give any credit to the appellant for these reports saying that that was "voluntary work" done, and that these reports were produced outside his 'official duties'. The appellant pointed out that if an officer produced important Reports extremely useful to the State such work would be extra work and could not be ignored as 'voluntary work'. He claimed he had to be given credit for his good work and that that work could not be ignored as if it was done for his personal benefit. It is worthwhile referring to a summary of these reports and how they became useful to the State:
Baikuntha Nath Das And Anr vs Chief Distt. Medical Officer, Baripada ... on 19 February, 1992
(iv) Fourthly, the Joint Screening Committee in its decision dated 30.8.79 relied upon very old adverse remarks or comments. Some were made when the appellant was in Training School and in the initial years of his service. Some were made before 1.11.72 on which date the appellant was promoted to selection grade. This was not a fair assessment and is in breach of the principles laid down in Baikunth Nath Das case.
Union Of India & Another vs G. Ganayutham on 27 August, 1997
36. This Court considered in extenso in Union of India v. G. Ganayutham 1997(7) SCC 463 the applicability of Wednesbury rules while judging the validity of punishments inflicted in disciplinary actions and the principle of 'proportionality' as applicable to such cases. The case on hand comes within the narrow limits of interference mentioned in the said judgment.
Baidyanath Mahapatra vs State Of Orissa & Anr on 10 August, 1989
In fact on the second point the three Judge Bench overruled the two Judge Bench judgment in Brij Mohan Singh Chopra v. State of Punjab 1987(2) SCC 188 and also another judgment in Baidyanath Mohapatra v. State of Orissa 1989(4) SCC 664. It was held that the view taken in these two latter cases decided by two Judge Benches that uncommunicated adverse remarks could not be relied upon if no opportunity for a representation was given or no decision was taken on the representation, was not correct. This aspect is covered by paras 24 to 30 of the judgment of the three Judge Bench.
Union Of India vs V.P. Seth And Another on 11 January, 1994
In the first of these latter cases, namely, Union of India v. V.R. Seth [AIR 1994 SC 1261] the point related both to adverse remarks of a period before an earlier promotion but also to uncommunicated adverse remarks. It was held that the Tribunal was wrong in holding in favour of the officer on the ground that uncommunicated adverse remarks could not be relied upon for purposes of compulsory retirement. So far as the remarks prior to an earlier promotion this Court did not hold that they could be given as much weight as those in later years.
The State Of Punjab vs Gurdas Singh on 31 March, 1998
The fact also remains that in Gurdas Singh's case there were other adverse remarks also even after the earlier promotion, regarding dishonesty though they were not communicated. We do not think that Gurdas Singh is an authority to say that adverse remarks before a promotion however remote could be given full weight in all situations irrespective of whether they related to dishonesty or otherwise.