Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.28 seconds)Rajinder Kaur vs Punjab State & Anr on 8 August, 1986
The main contention on behalf of the appellant was that an inquiry was
made by the Deputy Superintendent of Police as to the character of the
appellant into the allegation that she stayed at Mahalpur for one or two
nights with one constable Jaswant Singh and evidence was recorded
therein without giving the appellant any opportunity of hearing or to
cross-examine the witnesses and the impugned order was made after
completion of the investigation on the ground of her misconduct which
cast a stigma on her service career. This contention was accepted and on
the finding that though the order of discharge stated to be made in
accordance with the provisions of Rule 12.21 of the Rules, it was really
made on the basis of the misconduct as found on inquiry into the
allegation behind her back and further that though the order was couched
in innocuous terms, the order was merely camouflage for an order of
dismissal from service on the ground of misconduct, the impugned order
of discharge was set aside. With respects we are unable to agree with the
view taken in this case. As discussed earlier the consistent view of this
Court is that even if some kind of preliminary inquiry or fact finding
inquiry is held in which the employee is not afforded an opportunity of
hearing, the order of discharge of a probationer cannot be treated as an
order of punishment as the appointing authority has to necessarily
ascertain all the relevant facts before taking a decision whether the
probationer should be retained in service or not. The decision in Smt.
Rajinder Kaur vs. State of Punjab is hereby over-ruled.
Hardeep Singh vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 13 August, 1987
In support of his submission learned counsel has placed reliance
on Hardeep Singh vs. State of Haryana and others 1987 (Supp.)
State Of Uttar Pradesh And Anr vs Kaushal Kishore Shukla on 11 January, 1991
19. In the present case neither any formal departmental inquiry nor any
preliminary fact finding inquiry had been held and a simple order of
discharge had been passed. The High Court has built an edifice on the
basis of a statement made in the written statement that the respondent
was habitual absentee during his short period of service and has
concluded therefrom that it was his absence from duty that weighed in
the mind of Senior Superintendent of Police as absence from duty is a
misconduct. The High Court has further gone on to hold that there is
direct nexus between the order of discharge of the respondent from
service and his absence from duty and, therefore, the order discharging
him from service will be viewed as punitive in nature calling for a regular
inquiry under Rule 16.24 of the Rules. We are of the opinion that the
High Court has gone completely wrong in drawing the inference that the
order of discharge dated 16.3.1990 was, in fact, based upon the
misconduct and was, therefore, punitive in nature, which should have
been preceded by a regular departmental inquiry. There cannot be any
doubt that the respondent was on probation having been appointed about
eight months back. As observed in Ajit Singh and others etc. vs. State of
Punjab and another (supra) the period of probation gives time and
opportunity to the employer to watch the work ability, efficiency,
sincerity and competence of the servant and if he is found not suitable for
the post, the master reserves a right to dispense with his service without
anything more during or at the end of the prescribed period, which is
styled as period of probation. The mere holding of preliminary inquiry
where explanation is called from an employee would not make an
otherwise innocuous order of discharge or termination of service punitive
in nature. Therefore, the High Court was clearly in error in holding that
the respondent's absence from duty was the foundation of the order,
which necessitated an inquiry as envisaged under Rule 16.24(ix) of the
Rules.
S. P. Vasudeva vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 8 October, 1975
In S.P. Vasudeva vs. State of Haryana and others AIR 1975 SC
2292, it was held that where an order of reversion of a person who had no
right to the post, does not show ex facie that he was being reverted as a
measure of punishment or does not cast any stigma on him, the courts
will not normally go behind that order to see if there were any motivating
factors behind that order.
Bishan Lal Gupta vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 12 January, 1978
In Bishan Lal Gupta vs. State of Haryana and
others AIR 1978 SC 363, it was held where the intention behind an
inquiry against a probationer was not to hold a full departmental trial to
punish but a summary inquiry to determine only suitability to continue in
service of the probationer and the probationer was given ample
opportunity to answer in writing whatever was alleged against him in
show cause notices, the innocuous order of termination following such
summary inquiry could not be said to be an order of punishment which
entitled him to a full-fledged inquiry contemplated by Article 311 of the
Constitution.
Oil And Natural Gas Commission And Ors vs Dr. Mohd. S. Iskender Ali on 14 April, 1980
In Oil and Natural Gas Commission vs. Dr. Md. S.
Iskander Ali AIR 1980 SC 1242, it was held as under: -
Sher Singh Etc. Etc vs State Of Haryana And Ors. Etc. Etc on 8 January, 1991
7. A Full Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Sher Singh v.
State of Haryana and others 1994 (1) PLR 456, has examined the content
and scope of Rules 12.21, 19.3 and 19.5 of the Rules in considerable
detail. It has been held in that case that the effect of the Rules is that for
a period of three years a constable is under surveillance. He is being
watched and is kept in close supervision. He has no right to the post and
his services are terminable at any time during this period of three years.
He can secure his position in the service only if he convinces the
Superintendent of Police that he is likely to prove an efficient police
officer. The Full Bench has further held that the Rules contained the
necessary guidelines for the Superintendent of Police, on the basis of
which, he has to form an opinion regarding a constable. If on a
consideration of the relevant material, the Superintendent of Police finds
that a particular constable is not active, disciplined, self-reliant, punctual,
sober, courteous or straight-forward or that he does not possess the
knowledge or the technical details of the work required of him, he can
reasonably form an opinion that he is not likely to prove an efficient
police officer. In such a situation the Superintendent of Police can
invoke his power under Rule 12.21 and can discharge the constable from
the force. We are in agreement with the view taken by the Full Bench of
the High Court.
Governing Council Of Kidwai Memorial ... vs Dr Pandurang Godwalkar And Anr on 23 October, 1992
In Governing Council of Kidwai Memorial Institute of Oncology,
Bangalore vs. Dr. Pandurang Godwalkar and another, AIR 1993 SC 392,
the same principle was reiterated and it was held that where the service of
an employee is terminated during the period of probation or while his
appointment is on temporary basis, by an order of termination simpliciter
after some preliminary enquiry it cannot be held that as some enquiry had
been made against him before issuance of order of termination it really
amounted to his removal from service on a charge, as such penal in
nature.
Ravindra Kumar Misra vs U.P. State Handloom Corporation Ltd. & ... on 15 October, 1987
In Ravindra Kumar Misra vs. U.P. State Handloom Corporation
Ltd and another AIR 1987 SC 2408, the appellant had been appointed on
30.10.1976 and had got two promotions while still working in temporary
status and by 1982 he had been working as Deputy Production Manager.
On 22.11.1982 he was placed under suspension and the suspension order
recited that as a result of preliminary inquiries made by the Central
Manager it had come to notice that the appellant was responsible for
misconduct, dereliction of duty, mismanagement and showing fictitious
production of terrycot cloth. The suspension order was revoked on
1.2.1983 and thereafter on 10.2.1983 a simple order terminating his
services was passed reciting that his services were no more required and
his service would be deemed to be terminated from the date of receipt of
the notice. It was further mentioned therein that he would be entitled to
receive one month's salary in lieu of notice period. The termination
order was challenged by the appellant on the ground that the same was
punitive in nature, which was also demonstrated from the fact that shortly
before the order of termination a suspension order had been passed
wherein a specific charge of misconduct against him was mentioned.
After referring to several earlier decisions this Court repelled the
challenge made by the employee by observing as under in paragraph 6 of
the Report: -