Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.64 seconds)Aamad @ Kalu Abdulbhai Majothi And Anr. vs State Of Gujarat on 18 November, 1998
5.7 In Imranbhai Anwarbhai Majothi (supra), it was thereafter
observed and held,
Page 11 of 17
Downloaded on : Sat Jan 15 04:06:37 IST 2022
C/LPA/99/2021 ORDER DATED: 08/06/2021
"6. When the impugned order is assessed, evaluated and
considered in light of the aforesaid principles, it is even not
necessary to adopt the process of lifting of veil. It is not
necessary to remove the facade even, for, the order in these
very recitals could be manifestly said to be based on
allegations of misconduct. The plain reading of order castes
stigma. It is a stigmatic action of termination of petitioner's
service. Such an action could not have been taken, even
though the petitioner was a fixed period employee, without
giving the petitioner a fullfledge opportunity to defend and
thus by holding a regular departmental inquiry. The employer
is not allowed to hire and fire employee. Even if the
temporary, ad-hoc or probationer employee is driven out of
service on the ground of misconduct without holding inquiry
and stigma is caste on his career by the punitive order, it is
also a facet of behaving with hire and fire attitude by the
employer."
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:
Anoop Jaiswal vs Government Of India & Anr on 24 January, 1984
5.3 The principle stated was that even the form of the order may be
merely a camouflage for order of dismissal actually passed on the
basis of misconduct. In such circumstances, the Apex Court stated,
it is always open to the court before which the order is challenged,
to go beyond the form and ascertain the true character of the order.
The Supreme Court held,
"If .... .... .... the court reaches the conclusion that the alleged
act of misconduct was the cause of the order and that but for
that incident it would not have been passed then it is
inevitable that the order of discharge should fall to the ground
where the aggrieved officer is not afforded a reasonable
opportunity to defend himself as provided in Article 311(2). It
is wrong to assume that it is only when there is a full scale
departmental enquiry any termination made thereafter will
attract the operation of Article 311(2)." (Paras 11 and 13)
5.4 It is the foundation of the order which really matters. The
Supreme Court in Anoop Jaiswal (supra) stated that if from the
record and the attendant circumstances of the present case it
becomes clear that the real foundation for the order of discharge of
the appellant-probationer was the alleged act of misconduct, the
impugned order would amount to termination of service by way of
punishment and in absence of any enquiry held in accordance with
Article 311(2), it was liable to be struck down. The Supreme Court
thereafter directed reinstatement of the appellant of the said case in
service with the same rank of seniority he was entitled to before the
impugned order passed as if it had not been passed at all.
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.
State Of Gujarat vs Chetan Jayantilal Rajgor on 24 July, 2020
"8.1 In the cognate matter also, almost similar observations are
visible and as such, we do not propose to over burden the present
order. These observations if to be examined in the background of
present fact situation, the same are found to be just and proper. It
appears here that the original petitioners were dealt with by issuance
of show cause notice with respect to serious charges levelled against
them and the notice was given stating as to why in terms of their
appointment, they may not be dismissed from the services. Now, this
show cause notice appears to have been replied at length by the
original petitioners and subsequently, by giving a brief opportunity,
without conducting full-scale departmental inquiry, an order of
dismissal came to be passed. This procedure which has been adopted
Page 14 of 17
Downloaded on : Sat Jan 15 04:06:37 IST 2022
C/LPA/99/2021 ORDER DATED: 08/06/2021
by the department against both the original petitioners and
undisputedly, no departmental inquiry having been conducted against
them, the learned Single Judge, on the basis of relevant proposition of
law laid down by the Apex Court, was justified in his view that in the
absence of full-scale departmental inquiry, the services of the writ
petitioners cannot be terminated in the manner in which it has been
put to an end.
Vadodara Municipal Corporation vs Manish Nayanbhai Mod on 25 January, 2017
8.3 The bone of contention of appellants - State authorities is that
since the original petitioners are employed on a contract basis and
fixed pay, the Department is not under an obligation to conduct a
detailed full-scale departmental inquiry. Now, this contention has been
the subject matter of scrutiny on earlier occasion before a Coordinate
Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No.189 of 2018 between Vadodara
Municipal Corporation v. Manishbhai Nayanbhai Modh, decided on
20.2.2018. The relevant observations contained in the said decision
are reflecting in Para.4.1 which are also based upon the decision of
the Apex Court and in consonance with the provision of the Gujarat
Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1971. The said
observations have also been considered at length by the learned
Single Judge which are reflecting in Para. 5.7 of the impugned order.
Rahul Aydanbhai Vank vs State Of Gujarat on 5 September, 2018
9. Yet in another decision again by the Division Bench of this Court
rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No.841 of 2019 between Rahul
Aydanbhai Vak v. State of Gujarat, decided on 15.4.2019, in which the
same issue has been considered. The relevant discussion of the
Division Bench in the said case is contained in Para.7, 8 and 9, in
which in no uncertain terms, almost in similar set of circumstance, the
Division Bench has clearly opined that full-scale departmental inquiry
will have to be undertaken, if initiation of action on the basis of
unsatisfactory work, gross negligence or indiscipline or any act which
may tantamount to be stigmatic and as such, consistently this view
has been clearly opined by the Division Bench.
The Management Of Narendra And Co Pvt Ltd vs Workmen Of Narendra & Co on 14 March, 2008
12. Additionally, we are also of the opinion that these Letters Patent
Appeals have arisen out of the learned Single Judge's decision. The
scope of Letters Patent Appeal is well defined by the Apex Court in the
case of Management of Narendra & Company Private Limited v.
Workmen of Narendra & Company, reported in 2016 LawSuit (SC) 94.
Relevant Para.5 of the said decision is reproduced hereinafter :