Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.21 seconds)
K Nagendra Babu vs M/O Defence on 3 April, 2018 cites

Chandra Prakash Shahi vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 25 April, 2000

15. As to the above contention it requires to be noticed that there is no conflict between the ratio laid down in Chandra Prakash Shahi Vs. State of U.P. and others (2000) 5 SCC 152 and Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India (2016) 8 SCC 471. The facts of the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chandra Prakash Shahi are entirely different from the facts of the present case. In the said case an enquiry about the misconduct was held behind the back of the employee and an order of termination was passed. The misconduct was that the employee was found involved in an incident of quarrel subsequent to his employment. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has drawn a distinction between termination simpliciter and punitive. In the said case also the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that the employee has no right to post on which he is placed on probation. His services can therefore be terminated during or at the end of probation on account of his unsuitability in post. If the termination is punitive in nature it must be as per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court only after issuing a show cause notice to the employee and also holding disciplinary enquiry against him. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case held that the termination does not conform to the procedure prescribed in para 54 (2) of 9 of 15 U.P.Police Regulations. As per the procedure the probationer has to be informed the ground on which his services are proposed to be terminated, he is required to explain his position and thereafter the reply is to be considered by the Superintendent of Police so that if the reply is found to be convincing, he may not be deprived of his services. According to the Hon'ble Supreme Court if the said procedure is followed and the employee is terminated thereafter, it would not amount to punitive action. Therefore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in view of the facts of the case before it held that the temporary government employee or a probationer is also entitled to protection of Article 311 (2) Constitution of India where the termination relates to misconduct which is punitive in nature.
Supreme Court of India Cites 33 - Cited by 121 - S S Ahmad - Full Document

Bhagat Singh Pal vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 15 October, 2004

12. Here is a case wherein the applicant is not confirmed in service. Therefore, the protection under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of holding departmental enquiry is not available to him. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Bhagat Singh Paul Vs. Union of India and others in W.P.( C) No.1229/1994 dated 15.10.2004 held categorically on the very same issue as follows :-
Delhi High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 1 - M Sharma - Full Document

The Union Of India & Ors vs Amit Kumar Singh & Ors on 3 February, 2012

Union of India and others Vs. Amit Singh (2018) 1 SLR 164 (S.C.) The case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court relates to trivial issue between the friends in a cricket match and the same was compounded by the learned Magistrate. The incident in the case happened much prior to the filing of the application for appointment. The employee therein however suppressed the factum of 13 of 15 involvement in the criminal case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, permitted the employee to file a representation before the appropriate authority and directed the appropriate authority to pass a speaking order on the representation after affording an opportunity of hearing to the employee in the light of the judgement of Avtar Singh within a period of four months.
Patna High Court - Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 3 - T M Kumari - Full Document
1