Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.74 seconds)The Army Act, 1950
Sukhbans Singh vs State Of Punjab on 6 April, 1962
"This Court has consistently held that when a
first appointment of promotion is made on
probation for a specific period and the employee
is allowed to continue in the post after the expiry
of the period without any specific order of
confirmation, he should be deemed to continue
in his post as a probationer only, in the absence
of any indication to the contrary in the original
order of appointment or promotion or the service
WP(C) No.550/1993 Page No.23 of 30
rules. In such a case, an express order of
confirmation is necessary to give the employee a
substantive right to the post, and from the mere
fact that he is allowed to continue in the post
after the expiry of the specified period of
probation it is not possible to hold that he should
be deemed to have been confirmed. This view
was taken in Sukhbans Singh v. The State of
Punjab MANU/SC/0356/1962 : 1963 (1) SCR 416,
G.S. Ramaswamy v. The Inspector-General of
Police, Mysore State, Bangalore [1964] 6 S.C.R.
278, The Accountant General, Madhya Pradesh,
Gwalior v. Beni Prasad Bhatnagar [C.A. No. 548
of 1962 decided on January 23, 1964.
G. S. Ramaswamy & Ors vs Inspector-General Of Police, Mysore on 21 January, 1964
"This Court has consistently held that when a
first appointment of promotion is made on
probation for a specific period and the employee
is allowed to continue in the post after the expiry
of the period without any specific order of
confirmation, he should be deemed to continue
in his post as a probationer only, in the absence
of any indication to the contrary in the original
order of appointment or promotion or the service
WP(C) No.550/1993 Page No.23 of 30
rules. In such a case, an express order of
confirmation is necessary to give the employee a
substantive right to the post, and from the mere
fact that he is allowed to continue in the post
after the expiry of the specified period of
probation it is not possible to hold that he should
be deemed to have been confirmed. This view
was taken in Sukhbans Singh v. The State of
Punjab MANU/SC/0356/1962 : 1963 (1) SCR 416,
G.S. Ramaswamy v. The Inspector-General of
Police, Mysore State, Bangalore [1964] 6 S.C.R.
278, The Accountant General, Madhya Pradesh,
Gwalior v. Beni Prasad Bhatnagar [C.A. No. 548
of 1962 decided on January 23, 1964.
Jaswantsingh Pratapsingh Jadeja vs Rajkot Municipal Corporation & Anr on 11 October, 2007
In the judgment reported at (2007) 10 SCC 161 Jaswant
Singh Pratapsingh Jadeja Vs. Rajkot Municipal
Corporation & Anr., the period of probation of the petitioner
had expired when his misconduct was taken note of. Learned
counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on this
pronouncement in support of his plea that the order of
termination of the service was not an order of discharge
simplicitor but was stigmatic. In para 16 of the pronouncement,
the Supreme Court had observed that if the satisfaction of the
employer rested on the unsatisfactory performance on the part
of the appellant, the matter may have been different but in that
case, from the impguned order it was evident that it was not the
unsatisfactory nature and character of his performance only
which was taken into consideration but series of other acts as
well, misconduct on his part has also taken into consideration.
The court, consequently, observed that there was also one thing
to say that he was found unsuitable for a job but it is another
thing to say that he was said to have committed some
misconduct. We also find that the order of discharge as noted
by the Supreme Court in para 4 had made specific allegations
WP(C) No.550/1993 Page No.25 of 30
against the petitioner. In this background, the Supreme Court
was of the view that the order of discharge of the appointment
was not an order of discharge simplicitor.
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh Thru. ... vs Satya Narayan Jhavar on 14 August, 2001
In High Court of Madhya Pradesh Through Registrar
vs. Satya Narayan Jhavar (supra), the Supreme Court has
clearly held that there was no bar against termination of service
at any point of time after expiry of the period of initial probation.
The Supreme Court has further held that so far as the first
eventuality is concerned, if the officer is continued beyond the
prescribed or extended period, he cannot be deemed to be
confirmed.
State Of Punjab & Anr vs Shri Sukh Raj Bahadur on 22 February, 1968
In view of the consideration in Sukh Raj
Bahadur's case (supra), it cannot be held that the order of
termination is without disciplinary proceedings.
Article 1 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 1 in The Army Act, 1950 [Entire Act]
Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan vs Mehbub Alam Laskar on 22 January, 2008
28) & (2008) 2 SCC 479 Nehru Yuva Kendra Vs. Mehbub
Alam Laskar (paras 16 to 24))