Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.25 seconds)Rajesh Kumar Srivastava vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 10 March, 2011
22. The contention that the inquiry should have
been conducted before passing the order dated
11.6.2015, and in absence of any inquiry, the
action is in violation of principles of natural
justice, has been answered by the Apex Court in
the case of Rajesh Kumar Srivastava vs. State of
Jharkhand reported in (2011)4 SCC 447. In the
said case, one of the contentions raised by the
employee was that order of removal having been
passed without holding an inquiry, amounts to not
only violation of principles of natural justice,
but also amounts to casting a stigma in the
career of the employee. The Apex Court held that
Page 9 of 20
Downloaded on : Thu Jul 11 00:42:07 IST 2019
C/SCA/12359/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
the decision to discharge the employee from
service was taken by the employer after
considering his overall performance, conduct,
suitability for job and while taking decision in
this regard, neither is any notice required to be
given nor opportunity of hearing. The relevant
paragraphs read thus:-
Pavanendra Narayan Verma vs Sanjay Gandhi P.G.I. Of Medical Sci. & ... on 5 November, 2001
25. The judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
Pavanendra Narayan Verma vs. SGPGI of Medical
Sciences reported in (2002)1 SCC 520 relied upon
by the respondent, is worth referring to. The
Page 11 of 20
Downloaded on : Thu Jul 11 00:42:07 IST 2019
C/SCA/12359/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
Apex Court, while considering various judgments
of the Supreme Court, observed in paragraph 21,
which reads thus:-
State Of Punjab And Others vs Sukhwinder Singh on 14 July, 2005
"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
Page 13 of 20
Downloaded on : Thu Jul 11 00:42:07 IST 2019
C/SCA/12359/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
16.24(ix) of the Rules.
Chaitanya Prakash & Anr vs H.Omkarappa on 12 January, 2010
In the case of Chaitanya Prakash & Anr. vs.
H. Omkarappa reported in (2010) 2 SCC 623, the
Apex Court held that if an order of termination
refers to unsatisfactory service of the person
concerned, the same cannot be said to be
stigmatic. The Apex Court, while allowing the
appeal of the appellant - employer, observed that
the Board of Directors, after considering the
performance assessment report so also other
records, took a considered and conscious decision
that the respondent - Officer was not suitable
for confirmation and it is thereafter, that the
services were terminated. The Apex Court, while
Page 14 of 20
Downloaded on : Thu Jul 11 00:42:07 IST 2019
C/SCA/12359/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
confirming the action of the Board of Directors,
observed in paragraphs 23 and 24 as under:-
Kamlesh R. Bhrambhatt vs Mahemdabad Education Society on 19 March, 2004
In this behalf, reliance has been
placed on the judgment in the case of Kamlesh R.
Brahmbhatt Vs. Memdabad Eduction Society reported
in 2004(4) GLR 3610. It is further submitted that
this court has categorically observed that while
deciding the validity of the order, what is to be
seen, is the content of the order, terminating
the service of the probationer and nothing
beyond. Mr. Joshi further submitted that the
reasons, if any, set-out by the management in
response to a challenge to such an order, should
not be held into the order.
Raksha Shakti University Act, 2009
1