Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.36 seconds)
State Of Gujarat vs Kapil Rasikbhai Jethwa on 9 June, 2021 cites

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.
Gujarat High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 94 - N V Anjaria - Full Document

Radhey Shyam Gupta vs U.P. State Agro Industries Corporation ... on 15 December, 1998

5.5 In Ratnesh Kumar Choudhary (supra) also the Supreme Court considered its own various decisions on the aspect and after referring to the decision in Radhey Shyam Gupta v. U.P. State Agro Industries Corpn. Ltd. [(1999) 2 SCC 21] observed that the proposition of law operating two ways. In certain cases of temporary servants and probationers if the inquiry undertaken about the very conduct forms the motive of termination order, then the termination could not be said to be punitive merely because principles of natural justice have not been followed. In such circumstances, without becoming stigmatic, the employer can exercise its right to terminate service of the employee concerned. In the other line of decisions, the Supreme Court has ruled that if the facts revealed in the inquiry or from the narration of the order itself that the inquiry into the conduct was not the motive but it was a foundation and the allegation of misconduct considered against employee becomes foundation of termination of service of temporary servant or probationer, such action would become punitive and it would make the order legally Page 9 of 16 Downloaded on : Sat Jan 15 04:25:06 IST 2022 C/LPA/418/2021 ORDER DATED: 09/06/2021 unsound.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 126 - M J Rao - Full Document

Chaitanya Prakash & Anr vs H.Omkarappa on 12 January, 2010

"8. Even decision relied by learned Assistant Government Pleader in the case of Chaitanya Prakash and Another v. H. Omlarappa reported in (2010) 2 SCC 623 quotes decision in the case of Pavanendra Narayan Verma vs. Sanjay Gandhi PGI of Medical Sciences [(2002) 1 SCC 520] where three tests are enumerated to determine whether in substance an order of termination is punitive or not. We find in the present case all above tests namely a full scale formal inquiry, allegation involving moral turpitude or misconduct and culminating into Page 11 of 16 Downloaded on : Sat Jan 15 04:25:06 IST 2022 C/LPA/418/2021 ORDER DATED: 09/06/2021 guilt stands satisfied and therefore we have no hesitation to hold that the learned Single Judge committed no error of fact or law or jurisdiction warranting interference in this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent."
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 106 - M Sharma - Full Document

Pavanendra Narayan Verma vs Sanjay Gandhi P.G.I. Of Medical Sci. & ... on 5 November, 2001

"8. Even decision relied by learned Assistant Government Pleader in the case of Chaitanya Prakash and Another v. H. Omlarappa reported in (2010) 2 SCC 623 quotes decision in the case of Pavanendra Narayan Verma vs. Sanjay Gandhi PGI of Medical Sciences [(2002) 1 SCC 520] where three tests are enumerated to determine whether in substance an order of termination is punitive or not. We find in the present case all above tests namely a full scale formal inquiry, allegation involving moral turpitude or misconduct and culminating into Page 11 of 16 Downloaded on : Sat Jan 15 04:25:06 IST 2022 C/LPA/418/2021 ORDER DATED: 09/06/2021 guilt stands satisfied and therefore we have no hesitation to hold that the learned Single Judge committed no error of fact or law or jurisdiction warranting interference in this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent."
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 367 - R Pal - Full Document

Imranbhai Anwarbhai Majothi vs State Of Gujarat on 14 November, 2014

It may be noted that decision in Sandip Ajitsinh Vaghela v. State of Gujarat being Special Civil Application No.12071 of 2018 decided on 26th February, 2019 had similar facts so also the decision in Imranbhai Anwarbhai Majothi v. State of Gujarat being Special Civil Application No.17872 of 2017. Those petitions were also allowed by this Court. 6. In view of the above reasons and discussion and the position of law obtained, the impugned order being stigmatic and having been passed without compliance of natural justice and without holding of any inquiry, is liable to be set aside. The petition deserves to be allowed.
Gujarat High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 22 - A J Desai - Full Document

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 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.
Gujarat High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 83 - V Nath - Full Document

Vadodara Municipal Corporation vs Manish Nayanbhai Mod on 25 January, 2017

C/LPA/418/2021 ORDER DATED: 09/06/2021 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.
Gujarat High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 84 - S G Gokani - Full Document

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 :
Karnataka High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 140 - S B Adi - Full Document
1   2 Next