Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (1.00 seconds)
V. S. Menon vs Union Of India on 22 November, 1962 cites

P. Balakotaiah vs The Union Of India And Others(And ... on 3 December, 1957

that was not a case of dismissal or removal from service by way of punishment. It was also held in that case that the order terminating the services under r. 3 of the Security Rules stood on the same footing as an order of discharge under r. 148 of the Railway Establishment Code and was, therefore, outside the purview of Art. 311 of the Constitution. It is not disputed that there is no provision in the Rules relating to Posts and Telegraphs Service corresponding to r. 148 of the Railway Establishment Code. In the instant case, therefore, the premature termination of service before the age of superannuation could be justified only by virtue of r. 3. As r. 3 had not been attracted to the appellant's case for reasons given above, it follows at the premature termination of the appellant's service would be tantamount to removal from service by way of penalty. In that view of the matter, the appellant certainly had a grievance which he could ventilate under Art. 226 of the Constitution, and on the findings arrived at by us on the main question he is entitled to the declaration that his service was not legally terminated in accordance with r. 3 of the Security Rules. The appeal is accordingly allowed with costs.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 107 - Full Document
1