Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.25 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Shahoodul Haque vs The Registrar, Co-Operative ... on 9 August, 1974
In the case of Shahoodul Haque (supra), the Supreme Court (Bench of three Hon'ble Judges) considered the case where the concerned employee did not choose to avail the opportunity and held that in such situation, it cannot be said that there has been violation of principles of natural Justice. In our opinion, facts of case of Shahoodul Haque are parallel to the facts of the present case and its ratio cannot be ignored on any good ground.
Deokinandan Prasad vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 4 May, 1971
In
the case of Deokinandan Prasad
(supra), Supreme Court observed that
employee was always ready and
willing to do his duty and the
respondents illegally prevented him
from Joining duty by ignoring the
orders of the civil court. The facts of
this case are entirely different and its
ratio cannot be applied to the facts of
the present case wherein employee
deliberately avoided, out of his sheer
violation, to avail the opportunity to
join the post and wants to take
shelter behind technical
interpretation of law.
Jai Shanker vs Satate Of Rajasthan on 16 September, 1965
Case of
Deokinandan Prasad (supra)
considered the case of Jai Shanker
(supra). Facts of each of these cases
are distinguishable. Court in this
case observed "a person is entitled to
continue in service, if he wants, until
his service is terminated." It was a
case of over-staying leave and not of
taking Job elsewhere in complete
disregard of reciprocal discharge of
service 'duties' and 'obligations'.
State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Phodal Hira And Ors. on 28 August, 1970
33. On perusal of the entire material on record and in view of the Judgment of Supreme Court in the case of State of M. P. (supra), we come to the conclusion that the petitioner had deliberately avoided to receive relevant orders and, therefore, he cannot complain of want of 'notice' and 'opportunity' which he voluntarily avoided to avail out of his own volition. For the relief of reinstatement in job, it was not enough for the petitioner to demonstrate technical infraction of law in his favour but he ought to have further proved his 'bona fide' to discharge duties at the relevant time. This relevant aspect of the case has been completely ignored.
The Buckingham And Carnatic Co. Ltd vs Venkatiah And Anr on 2 August, 1963
1. Buckingham and Carnatic Company Limited v. Venkatiah and another, AIR 1964 SC 1272.
Avinash Nagra vs Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti Etc on 30 September, 1996
In the case of Avinash Nagar v. Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti and others, (1997) 2 SCC 534, the Apex Court held that the enquiry before awarding punishment shall vary with exceptional facts of a particular case.
Dharmarathmakara R .A. Ramaswamy ... vs The Educational Appellate Tribunal & ... on 20 August, 1999
In the case of
Dharmarathmakara Ratbahadur Aroot
Ramaswamy Mudaliar Educational
Institution v. Education Appellate
Tribunal and another, JT 1999 (6) SC
60 (Paras 7 and 8), wherein a teacher
was granted extra-ordinary leave, left
for higher studies on furnishing
declaration that in case teacher fails
to resume duties after expiry of the
leave the authorities will be entitled
to terminate the service. The
concerned teacher neither Joined the
higher course for which leave was
granted nor resumed duties after the
expiry of the leave. Employer issued
show cause notice and on not being
satisfied with the explanation of the
teacher, terminated his services. The
Apex Court observed that on the facts
and circumstances of the case it
could not be said that there was any
violation of principles of natural
Justice. Court observed-"The facts
speak for themselves.
M.C. Mehta vs Union Of India And Ors on 27 July, 1999
In the case of M. C. Mehta v. Union of India and others, (1999) 6 SCC 237, Supreme Court referred to 'useless formalities' and 'admittedly indisputable facts' held that grant of a writ will be a futile exercise. In our opinion, similar is the position in the facts of the instant case.