Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.76 seconds)
Page No.# 1/29 vs The Food Corporation Of India And 3 Ors on 25 April, 2025 cites

Central Industrial Security Force vs Hc(Gd) Om Prakash on 4 February, 2022

40) It is seen from the departmental records of the petitioner that his APAR from 2000 to December, 2021 was duly considered by the Review Page No.# 20/29 Committee; it had also considered the vigilance and administrative profile of the petitioner; considered the email dated 05.11.2021 from the General Manager, Karnataka to Executive Director (South) wherein, by referring to serious irregularities, request was made for posting the petitioner out of Karnataka; and also considered that the petitioner was awarded penalty of reduction of pay- scale by 2 (two) stages for a period of 1 (one) year vide order dated 25.04.2017, which was reduced to reduction in the scale of pay by 1 (one) stage for a period of 1 (one) year without cumulative effect vide appellate order dated 27.06.2019. Accordingly, on the basis of the departmental records, the Court is inclined to hold that the entire service record of the petitioner was taken into consideration by the Review Committee in its minutes of meeting dated 06.06.2023 and 07.06.2023. Accordingly, in the opinion of the Court, the Review Committee has not acted contrary to (a) Regulation 22(2) of the FCI Staff Regulations, 1971, (b) DoPT OM dated 28.08.2020, and (c) FCI Circular dated 09.07.2021. Resultantly, the recommendation of the Review Committee and the order dated 12.06.2023, to retire the petitioner, is not found contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Baikuntha Nath Das (supra) and Central Industrial Security Force (supra).
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 9 - H Gupta - Full Document

Rajasthan State Road Tranp. Corp. & Ors vs Babu Lal Jangir on 16 September, 2013

In this regard, it is seen that in the case of Babu Lal Jangir (supra), amongst others, the Supreme Court of India had clarified that the after promotion, the adverse remarks against the employee would have no Page No.# 23/29 relevance and can be treated as wiped off when the case of the government employee is considered for further promotion, however, the washed off theory will have no application when the case of the employee is being assessed to determine whether he is to be retained in service or requires to be given compulsory retirement. Paragraph 24 and 25 thereof is quoted below: -
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 107 - A K Sikri - Full Document

Pyare Mohan Lal vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 10 September, 2010

25. Having taken note of the correct principles which need to be applied, we can safely conclude that the order of the High Court based solely on the judgment in the case of Brij Mohan Singh Chopra was not correct. The High Court could not have set aside the order merely on the ground that service record pertaining to the period 1978-90 being old and stale could not be taken into consideration at all. As per the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments, it is clear that entire service record is relevant for deciding as to whether the government servant needs to be eased out prematurely. Of course, at the same time, subsequent record is also relevant, and immediate past record, preceding the date on which decision is to be taken would be of more value, qualitatively. What is to be examined is the "overall performance" on the basis of "entire service record" to come to the conclusion as to whether the concerned employee has become a deadwood and it is public interest to retire him compulsorily. The Authority must consider and examine the overall effect of the entries of the officer concerned and not an isolated entry, as it may well be in some cases that in spite of Page No.# 24/29 satisfactory performance, the Authority may desire to compulsorily retire an employee in public interest, as in the opinion of the said authority, the post has to be manned by a more efficient and dynamic person and if there is sufficient material on record to show that the employee "rendered himself a liability to the institution", there is no occasion for the Court to interfere in the exercise of its limited power of judicial review."
Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 157 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

Gujarat State Road Transport ... vs Umarbhai Musabhai Patel on 13 December, 2021

43) The case of Umedbhai M. Patel (supra), has distinguishable facts. In the said case, the respondent therein had crossed the efficiency bar at the age of 50 years and 55 years and then he was placed under suspension on 22.05.1986 and thus, it was held that the appellants had sufficient time to complete the disciplinary enquiry against the respondent and therefore, when the respondent had two years to retire and the Review Committee had not recommended his name, it was held that the order of compulsory retirement was passed under extraneous considerations. Therefore, the facts in the present case are not similar. It is seen that the Circular dated 09.07.2021, referred above, envisaged consideration of review of FCI employees that an officer under Category-I for the second time and the Review Committee had recommended the name of the petitioner for his compulsory retirement.
Gujarat High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next