Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.30 seconds)
R.Murugadoss vs The Secretary To Government on 11 December, 2008 cites

Kunwar Arun Kumar vs U.P. Hill Electronic Corporation Ltd. & ... on 28 October, 1996

In Kunwar Arun Kumar v. U.P.Hill Electronics Corporation Ltd., reported in 1997 (2) SCC 191, the petitioner therein was appointed on 15.01.1990 and he was put on probation. During the period of probation, his work performance was found unsatisfactory and accordingly, by order dated 16.01.1991, his services were terminated. The employer had recorded the finding that the petitioner was regularly absent on one ground or the other. The petitioner therein challenged the order of termination before the High Court, contenting inter alia that there was a stigma. The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition. Before the Supreme Court, it was inter alia contended that the finding receorded amounts to stigma and therefore, the action taken without conducting an enquiry and giving opportunity to the petitioner was violative of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India and the rules made thereunder. Disagreeing with the above submissions, The Supreme Court observed as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 59 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

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

Following the decision in State of Punjab v. Sukhwinder Singh reported in 2005 (5) SCC 569, Prithipal Singh v. State of Punjab reported in 2002 (10) SCC 133 and Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab reported in 1983 (2) SCC 217, the Supreme Court in Avtar Singh's case, held that, "once there is stigma, the principle is well settled, an opportunity has to be given before passing any order. Even where an order of discharge looks innocuous, but on a close scrutiny, by looking behind the curtain if any material exists of misconduct and which is the foundation of passing of the order of discharge, or such could be reasonably inferred, then it leaves no room for doubt that any consequential order, even of discharge, would be construed as stigmatic. The decision in Sukhwinder Singh1 was given by a three-Judge Bench and in view of that decision in 2005, there is no scope for this Court to take a different view. We are squarely bound by the said decision."
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 153 - G P Mathur - Full Document

State Of Punjab & Ors vs Rajesh Kumar on 20 November, 2006

In yet another decision arising out of the same High Court in State of Punjab v. Rajesh Kumar reported in 2006 (12) SCC 418, the respondent was a Police Constable appointed on 02.12.1989. He was discharged from service on 18.10.1992 under Rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules, which states that, "A Constable is found unlikely to prove an efficient police officer may be discharged by the Superintendent of Police at any time within three years of enrollment. There shall be no appeal against an order of discharge under the rule."
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 38 - A R Lakshmanan - Full Document

State Of Punjab & Ors vs Avtar Singh (Dead) By Lrs on 12 May, 2008

Following the decision in State of Punjab v. Sukhwinder Singh reported in 2005 (5) SCC 569, Prithipal Singh v. State of Punjab reported in 2002 (10) SCC 133 and Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab reported in 1983 (2) SCC 217, the Supreme Court in Avtar Singh's case, held that, "once there is stigma, the principle is well settled, an opportunity has to be given before passing any order. Even where an order of discharge looks innocuous, but on a close scrutiny, by looking behind the curtain if any material exists of misconduct and which is the foundation of passing of the order of discharge, or such could be reasonably inferred, then it leaves no room for doubt that any consequential order, even of discharge, would be construed as stigmatic. The decision in Sukhwinder Singh1 was given by a three-Judge Bench and in view of that decision in 2005, there is no scope for this Court to take a different view. We are squarely bound by the said decision."
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 43 - D Bhandari - Full Document

Kamal Kishore Lakshman vs Management Of Pan American World ... on 3 December, 1986

23. As to what amounts to stigma, has been explained in Kamal Kishore Lakshman v. Pan American World Airways Inc. reported in 1987 (1) SCC 147, at Paragraph 8, of the judgment, "8. According to Websters New World Dictionary, it (stigma) is something that detracts from the character or reputation of a person, a mark, sign etc. indicating that something is not considered normal or standard. The Legal Thesaurus by Burton gives the meaning of the word to be blemish, defect, disgrace, disrepute, imputation, mark of disgrace or shame. The Websters Third New International Dictionary gives the meaning as a mark or label indicating a deviation from a norm. According to yet another dictionary stigma is a matter for moral reproach.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 115 - R B Misra - Full Document

K.V. Krishnamani vs Lalit Kala Academy on 10 May, 1996

In Krishnamani v. Lalit Kala Academy reported in 1996 (5) SCC 89, the service of a probationer was found not to be satisfactory and therefore, he was terminated during probation. The reasons stated in the counter affidavit was that driving of staff car was not satisfactory. It was contended that an enquiry ought to have been conducted, proceeding the order of termination. Repelling the said contention, the Supreme Court, at Paragraph 4, observed that the very object of probation is to test the suitability and if the appointing authority finds that the candidate is not suitable, it certainly has power to terminate services of the employee. The Apex Court held that the reasons mentioned in the counter affidavit constitute only motive and not foundation for termination of service.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 28 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Dipti Prokash Banerjee vs Satyendra Nath Bose And National ... on 23 April, 1998

In Dipti Prakash Banerjee v. Satyendra nath Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences, Calcutta and others reported in 1999 (3) SCC 60, the Supreme Court explained the meaning of the words "motive" and "foundation", on which, innocuous order of termination is passed, "21. If findings were arrived at in an enquiry as to misconduct, behind the back of the officer or without a regular departmental enquiry, the simple order of termination is to be treated as founded on the allegations and will be bad. But if the enquiry was not held, no findings were arrived at and the employer was not inclined to conduct an enquiry but, at the same time, he did not want to continue the employee against whom there were complaints, it would only be a case of motive and the order would not be bad. Similar is the position if the employer did not want to enquire into the truth of the allegations because of delay in regular departmental proceedings or he was doubtful about securing adequate evidence. In such a circumstance, the allegations would be a motive and not the foundation and the simple order of termination would be valid."
Calcutta High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 14 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1   2 Next