Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (4.08 seconds)Madan Gopal vs State Of Punjab on 27 August, 1962
In Madan Gopal v. State of Punjab(1) the termination of the
appellant's service was held to be in violation of Art.
311(2) of the Constitution. There the appellant, Madan
Gopal, was appointed an Inspector of Consolidation "on
temporary basis and terminable with one month's notice". He
was served with a charge sheet to the effect that he had
received illegal ratification and called upon to show cause
why disciplinary action should not be taken against him.
The appellant submitted his explanation and the Settlement
Officer who had sent out the charge sheet submitted his
report to the Deputy Commissioner that the charge relating
to receipt of illegal gratification had been proved.
Thereupon the Deputy Commissioner ordered that the services
of Madan Gopal be terminated forthwith and that in lieu of
notice he would receive one month's
(1) [1963] 3 S.C.R. 716.
The State Of Orissa And Another vs Ram Narayan Das on 8 September, 1960
In the case of State of Orissa and another v. Ram Narayan
Das(1) the respondent who was a Sub-Inspector of Police on
probation in the Orissa Police Force, was served with a
notice to show cause why he should not be discharged from
service "for gross neglect of duties and unsatisfactory
Work". He submitted an explanation which was considered by
the Deputy Inspector-General of Police as unsatisfactory.
The said authority passed an order discharging the
respondent from service "for unsatisfactory work and
conduct'. The respondent's contention was that the order
was invalid because he had not been given a reasonable
opportunity to show cause against the proposed action in
terms of Art. 31.1(2) and that he was not give an
opportunity to be heard nor was any evidence taken on the
chaires. It was pointed out by this Court that the enquiry
against the respondent was only for ascertaining whether lie
was fit to be confirmed, and although "an order discharging
a public servant, even if a probationer-, in in enquiry on
charges of misconduct, negligence, inefficiency or other
disqualifications, may appropriately be regarded as one by
way of punishment, an order discharging a probationer
following upon an enquiry to ascertain whether he should be
confirmed is not of that nature." The Court distinguished
Gopi Kishore Prasad's(2) case on the --round that there the
public servant had been discharged from service consequent
upon an enquiry into alleged misconduct and the Enquiry
Officer had found that the public servant was 'unsuitable
for the post'. Finally it was held by this Court in Ram
Narayan Das's(1) case that
"...... the fact of the holding of an enquiry
is not decisive of the question. What is
decisive is whether the order is by way of
punishment in the light of the tests laid down
in Parshotam Lal Dhingra's (3 ) ."
Parshotam Lal Dhingra vs Union Of India on 1 November, 1957
In coming to
this conclusion the, learned single Judge relied on several
decisions starting from the case of Parshotam Lal Dhingra v.
Union of India(1).
Jagdish Mitter vs Union Of India on 20 September, 1963
In Jagdish Mitter v. Union of India(1) this Court allowed
the appeal of the appellant who was appointed as a temporary
second division clerk in the General Post Office, Lahore for
a period of six months in October 1946. His appointment was
continued from time to time when the impugned order was
passed terminating his services. It was pointed out by this
Court that even before discharging a temporary servant the
authority may have LO examine the question about the
suitability of the said servant to. be, continued and:
Article 133 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Of Bihar vs Gopi Kishore Prasad on 25 November, 1959
The appeal was allowed by the Letters Patent Bench. It ap-
pears that the Bench examined only the second point urged
before the learned single Judge and over-ruling his decision
allowed the appeal quashing the order reverting the writ
petitioner from the P.C.S. (Executive Branch). The Bench
relied principally on the judgment of this Court in Madan
Gopal v. State of Punjab (1) and The State of Bihar v. Gopi
Kishore Prasad (2) . According to the Bench the enquiry
started with a notice which expressly stated that it was
being made under sub-r. (2) of r. 7 of the Punjab Civil
Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1952. Sub-r. (1) of
r. 7 provided that an order of dismissal, removal or
reduction should not be passed unless the person concerned
had been given reasonable opportunity of showing cause
against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him
while sub-r. (2) laid down the manner in which the enquiry
was to be held. From this the Bench inferred
that :
1