Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.51 seconds)
Davinder Singh & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 10 September, 2010 cites

Divisional Personnel Officer, Souther ... vs S.Raghavendrachar on 16 December, 1965

4) The learned counsel Sri Sanjay Sharawat appearing for the appellants, apart from others, submitted, that, the appellants, being temporary employees working from last 15 to 17 years, were entitled to Protection Guaranteed under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India before being terminated. Reference is made to the decision of this Court in the case of Parshotam Lal Dhingra Vs. Union of India (1958) SCR 828; and Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Railway, Mysore Vs. S. Raghavendrachar (1966) 3 SCR 106; since the appellants are governed by the provisions of Punjab Home Guards Act, 1947 and Punjab Home Guards and Civil Defence (Field) Class III Rules, 1983, their services could not have been terminated without issuing Show Cause Notice and without holding departmental enquiry. Alternatively, it is contended that the order of termination passed by the respondents is not only stigmatic but the same has been passed as a consequence of an alleged misconduct committed by 3 the appellants at the Railway Station, Amritsar on 02.12.2004.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 29 - Full Document

State Of Gujarat And Anr vs Akshay Arutlal Thakkar on 17 January, 2006

(20)Now we take up the second issue. The appellants contend that the High Court erred in dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants relying on the decision of this court in State of Gujarat vs. Akshay Amrutlal Thakkar (2006) 2 SCC 309. In that case, Akshay Amrutlal Thakkar was appointed to the honorary post of District Commandant in the Home Guard and then subsequently the order of disengagement was passed by the State Govt. vide its order dated 02.12.1995. It is this order which was impugned in the writ petition. This court sustained the order passed by the State Government primarily on the ground, that the persons involved therein did not act in the terms of undertaking given by them. It has also observed, that the services rendered by those persons was honorary, therefore, no civil consequences were involved. In our view, the facts of that case are different from that of the instant case. In that case, Amrutlal Thakkar was being discharged from a honorary post, his employment was not being terminated as is being done in the present case. Therefore, in our opinion, the High Court was not justified in placing reliance on this decision to unsuit the appellants. 1 (21)A judgment, as is well known is the authority for the proposition which it decides and not what can logically be deduced from.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 16 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Parshotam Lal Dhingra vs Union Of India on 1 November, 1957

4) The learned counsel Sri Sanjay Sharawat appearing for the appellants, apart from others, submitted, that, the appellants, being temporary employees working from last 15 to 17 years, were entitled to Protection Guaranteed under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India before being terminated. Reference is made to the decision of this Court in the case of Parshotam Lal Dhingra Vs. Union of India (1958) SCR 828; and Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Railway, Mysore Vs. S. Raghavendrachar (1966) 3 SCR 106; since the appellants are governed by the provisions of Punjab Home Guards Act, 1947 and Punjab Home Guards and Civil Defence (Field) Class III Rules, 1983, their services could not have been terminated without issuing Show Cause Notice and without holding departmental enquiry. Alternatively, it is contended that the order of termination passed by the respondents is not only stigmatic but the same has been passed as a consequence of an alleged misconduct committed by 3 the appellants at the Railway Station, Amritsar on 02.12.2004.
Supreme Court of India Cites 46 - Cited by 809 - Full Document

State Of Kerala vs Mother Anasthasia, Superior General & ... on 6 February, 1997

(26)The expression `Discharge' was interpreted by this Court in the case of State of Kerala vs. Mother Anasthasia, Superior General and Others (1997) 10 SCC 79, wherein, it is stated, "Discharge would connote for any other reason ejusdem generis due to abolition of the post or course of study or such similar circumstances except for discharge due to misconduct.".
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 7 - Full Document
1   2 Next