Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.33 seconds)
Narayan Sadhashiv Mohite vs Baroda Municipal Corporation And Anr. on 26 March, 1992 cites

Somnath Sahu vs The State Of Orissa And Ors. on 21 March, 1969

In the case of Somanath Sahu v. State of Orissa and Ors., the Supreme Court was called upon to decide the question of validity or otherwise of the order of dismissal of the appellant from service. The order of dismissal against the appellant was passed by the Welfare Officer of the respondent-Company. The legality and validity of the said order was challenged on the ground that no notice was given to the appellant to deny misconduct and no enquiry was held by the Welfare Officer of the company before passing the order of dismissal. While considering the said question as regards the validity of the order of dismissal it was noticed by the Court that against said order of dismissal the appellant has preferred appeal to the State Govt. and the appeal was dismissed. The Court found that it was the appellate decision alone which was subsisting and it was operative in law and was capable of enforcement. In this connection the Court observed as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 51 - V Ramaswami - Full Document

The Bhopal Sugar Industries Ltd vs The Income-Tax Officer, Bhopal on 2 September, 1960

In the facts and circumstances of the case I am of the opinion that in view of the proposition of law as propounded by the Supreme Court in the case of Bhopal Sugar Industries v. Income Tax Officer, reported in AIR 1961 SC 185 (supra) read with the principle of merger as propounded by the Supreme Court in the case of Somnath Sahu v. State of Orissa and Ors., there is no room for doubt that it is a case where writ shall have to be issued to the respondent-Corporation to reinstate the petitioner in service and in my opinion issuance of such writ would not amount to committing contravention of any of the provisions of law. The Contention raised by the Municipal Commissioner and put forth before me by Mr. P.G. Desai learned Counsel for respondent-Corporation is fallacious for the simple reason that it takes into account the finding reached by the disciplinary authority and it fails to take into account the findings reached and ultimate directions issued by the Standing Committee while deciding the appeal as well as by deciding review application and if the decision of the Standing Committee (appellate authority) along with the directions issued by the Standing Committee are taken into consideration I am of the opinion that the Standing Committee has while ordering the reinstatement of the petitioner in service without backwages has factually not accepted the findings reached by the disciplinary authority. It cannot therefore be said that any disqualification is incurred by the petitioner, and therefore. I do not find any substance in any of the objections put forth by the respondents through their Counsel, Mr. P.G. Dcsai in not reinstating the peitioner in services and in not carrying out the order of the Standing Committee.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 175 - S K Das - Full Document

M. P. Mittal vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 10 October, 1984

20. Mr. Pranab Desai, learned Counsel for the respondent-Corporation has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M.P. Mittal v. Stale of Haryana and Ors., to bring home the point that this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has power to refuse the relief when the petitioner seeks to invoke its writ jurisdiction in order to secure a dishonest advantage or perpetuate injustice. He submitted that since the petitioner in this case has committed a serious misconduct which would disqualify him from continuing in service and since said finding was reached by the disciplinary authority, i.e., the Municipal Commissioner, this Court should not grant any relief to the petitioner. I am afraid I cannot accept this contention since it overlooks the fact that in appeal the Standing Committee after considering the order of the disciplinary authority and after considering the gravity of the charges levelled against the petitioner it decided to allow the appeal by reinstating the petitioner in service. This would actually amount to not agreeing with the findings reached by the disciplinary authority. Even when the review application was preferred by the Municipal Commissioner and specific objection was brought by him to the notice of the Standing Committee the appellate authority has rejected the review application and has ordered the Municipal Commissioner to comply with its order. I am, therefore, of the opinion that it cannot be said that the jurisdiction of this Court is invoked to secure dishonest advantage. In fact the appellate authority has allowed the appeal of the petitioner and has ordered his reinstatement. Appeal is statutory appeal. The result of said appeal is in favour of petitioner. The result of said appeal is that the order of the Municipal Commissioner no longer survives. The findings reached by the Municipal Commissioner in his order are for all purposes to be treated as non est and are required to be ignored. I am, therefore of the opinion that if relief as prayed for is not granted in this petition despite success of the petitioner in appeal before the Standing Committee it would amount to doing injustice to the petitioner. The aforesaid decision does not therefore, help the respondents. I am of the opinion the ratio of the said decision does not help the respondent-Corporation.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 82 - R S Pathak - Full Document
1