cites: 97305984

Dipti Prakash Banerjee vs Satvendra Nath Bose National Centre For ... on 10 February, 1999

7. The respondents submit that the termination order dated 29.07.2016 is a simple order, with no stigma attached to it and hence, the termination cannot be called a punitive order contrary to the applicant's submission. Further, it is pertinent to note that the case law cited by the applicant in the matter of Dipti Prakash Banerjee Vs Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences (1993) 3 SCC 691, the Hon'ble Apex Court set aside the termination order based on the ground of stigma attached to the termination order. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court has specifically stated that the case in question is based on two aspects; one, whether the impugned order is based on any conclusions arrived by the employer or the employer did not want to continue an employee as there were complaints against him; second, whether there is any stigma attached to the 7 Item No. 35/ C-2 O.A. No. 184/2019 termination order. They submit that in the present case, the applicant was given warnings, asking him to improve his conduct.

Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 500 - M J Rao - Full Document

M/S. Oswal Pressure Die Casting ... vs Presiding Officer & Anr on 20 February, 1998

36. It was in this context argued for the respondent that the employer in the present case had given ample opportunity to the employee by giving him warnings, asking him to improve and even extended his probation twice and this was not a case of unfairness and this Court should not interfere. It is trade that where the employee had been given suitable warnings, requested to improve, or where he was given a long rope by way of extension of probation, this Court has said that the termination orders cannot be held to be punitive. [See in this connection Hindustan Paper Corpn. v. Purnendu Chakrobarty, Oil & Natural Gas Commission v. Dr Md. S. Iskender Alps, Unit Trust of India v. T. Bijaya Kumar 26, Principal, Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education & Research, Pondicherry v. S. Andel27 and a labour case Oswal Pressure Die Casting Industry v. Presiding Officer 28] But in all these cases, the orders were simple orders of termination which did not contain any words amounting to stigma. In case we come to the conclusion that there is stigma in the impugned order, we cannot ignore the effect it will have on the probationer's future whatever be the earlier opportunities granted by the respondent-Organisation to the appellant to improve.

Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 39 - Full Document

Hindustan Paper Corpn vs Purnendu Chakrobarty & Ors on 30 October, 1996

36. It was in this context argued for the respondent that the employer in the present case had given ample opportunity to the employee by giving him warnings, asking him to improve and even extended his probation twice and this was not a case of unfairness and this Court should not interfere. It is trade that where the employee had been given suitable warnings, requested to improve, or where he was given a long rope by way of extension of probation, this Court has said that the termination orders cannot be held to be punitive. [See in this connection Hindustan Paper Corpn. v. Purnendu Chakrobarty, Oil & Natural Gas Commission v. Dr Md. S. Iskender Alps, Unit Trust of India v. T. Bijaya Kumar 26, Principal, Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education & Research, Pondicherry v. S. Andel27 and a labour case Oswal Pressure Die Casting Industry v. Presiding Officer 28] But in all these cases, the orders were simple orders of termination which did not contain any words amounting to stigma. In case we come to the conclusion that there is stigma in the impugned order, we cannot ignore the effect it will have on the probationer's future whatever be the earlier opportunities granted by the respondent-Organisation to the appellant to improve.

Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 36 - Full Document

Oil And Natural Gas Commission And Ors vs Dr. Mohd. S. Iskender Ali on 14 April, 1980

36. It was in this context argued for the respondent that the employer in the present case had given ample opportunity to the employee by giving him warnings, asking him to improve and even extended his probation twice and this was not a case of unfairness and this Court should not interfere. It is trade that where the employee had been given suitable warnings, requested to improve, or where he was given a long rope by way of extension of probation, this Court has said that the termination orders cannot be held to be punitive. [See in this connection Hindustan Paper Corpn. v. Purnendu Chakrobarty, Oil & Natural Gas Commission v. Dr Md. S. Iskender Alps, Unit Trust of India v. T. Bijaya Kumar 26, Principal, Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education & Research, Pondicherry v. S. Andel27 and a labour case Oswal Pressure Die Casting Industry v. Presiding Officer 28] But in all these cases, the orders were simple orders of termination which did not contain any words amounting to stigma. In case we come to the conclusion that there is stigma in the impugned order, we cannot ignore the effect it will have on the probationer's future whatever be the earlier opportunities granted by the respondent-Organisation to the appellant to improve.

Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 112 - S M Ali - Full Document

Commissioner, Food And Civil Supplies vs Prakash C. Saxena on 5 May, 1994

The Hon'ble Apex Court while examining the contention of the appellant that his termination order was punitive and in violation of the principles of natural justice, after considering the various 23 Item No. 35/ C-2 O.A. No. 184/2019 judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974) 2 SCC 831, Radhey Shyam Gupta vs. U.P. State Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. and Another (1999) 2 SCC 21, State of U.P. vs. Kaushal Kishore Shukla (1991) 1 SCC 691, Triveni Shankar Saxena vs. State of U.P.(1992) Supp (1) SCC 524, State of U.P. vs. Prem Lata Misra (1994) 4 SCC 189, Samsher Singh (supra), Parshotam Lal Dhingra vs. Union of India AIR 1958 SC 36, State of Bihar vs. Gopi Kishore Prasad AIR 1960 SC 689, State of Orissa vs. Ram Narayan Das AIR 1961 SC 177, Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. us. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha (1980) 2 SCC 593, Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. vs. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha (1980) 2 SCC 593, Anoop Jaiswal vs. Govt. of India (1984) 2 SCC 369, Nepal Singh vs. State of U.P. (1980) 3 SCC 288, Commissioner, Food & Civil Supplies vs. Prakash Chandra Saxena (1994) 5 SCC 177, Commissioner, Food & Civil Supplies vs. Prakash Chandra Saxena (1994) 5 SCC 177, Chandra Prakash Shahi us. State of U.P. and Others (2000) 5 SCC 152, Union of India and Others vs. Mahaveer C. Singhvi (2010) 8 SCC 220, Dipti Prakash Banerjee vs. Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences (1999) 3 SCC 60, Pavanendra Narayan Verma vs. Sanjay Gandhi P.G.I. of Medical Sciences and Another (2002) 1 SCC 520) and State Bank of India and Others us. Palak Modi and Another (2013) 3 SCC 607, ruled that if the termination order is stigmatic and based or founded upon misconduct, would be a punitive order and court can lift the veil and declare that in the garb of termination simpliciter, the employer has punished an employee, for an act of misconduct. It was also held that if a probationer is discharged on the ground of misconduct or inefficiency or for similar reason, without a proper enquiry and without his getting a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the termination, it may amount to removal from service within the meaning of Article 311 (2). Hence, a regular departmental enquiry was required to be conducted before passing any adverse order. In the absence of which, the termination order would be inoperative and non-est in the eyes of law. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment reads as under: -

Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 56 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Unit Trust Of India And Ors. vs T. Bijaya Kumar And Anr. on 14 August, 1992

36. It was in this context argued for the respondent that the employer in the present case had given ample opportunity to the employee by giving him warnings, asking him to improve and even extended his probation twice and this was not a case of unfairness and this Court should not interfere. It is trade that where the employee had been given suitable warnings, requested to improve, or where he was given a long rope by way of extension of probation, this Court has said that the termination orders cannot be held to be punitive. [See in this connection Hindustan Paper Corpn. v. Purnendu Chakrobarty, Oil & Natural Gas Commission v. Dr Md. S. Iskender Alps, Unit Trust of India v. T. Bijaya Kumar 26, Principal, Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education & Research, Pondicherry v. S. Andel27 and a labour case Oswal Pressure Die Casting Industry v. Presiding Officer 28] But in all these cases, the orders were simple orders of termination which did not contain any words amounting to stigma. In case we come to the conclusion that there is stigma in the impugned order, we cannot ignore the effect it will have on the probationer's future whatever be the earlier opportunities granted by the respondent-Organisation to the appellant to improve.

Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 27 - Full Document

State Of U.P. And Another State Of U.P. ... vs Km. Prem Lata Misra And Others on 21 April, 1994

The Hon'ble Apex Court while examining the contention of the appellant that his termination order was punitive and in violation of the principles of natural justice, after considering the various 23 Item No. 35/ C-2 O.A. No. 184/2019 judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974) 2 SCC 831, Radhey Shyam Gupta vs. U.P. State Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. and Another (1999) 2 SCC 21, State of U.P. vs. Kaushal Kishore Shukla (1991) 1 SCC 691, Triveni Shankar Saxena vs. State of U.P.(1992) Supp (1) SCC 524, State of U.P. vs. Prem Lata Misra (1994) 4 SCC 189, Samsher Singh (supra), Parshotam Lal Dhingra vs. Union of India AIR 1958 SC 36, State of Bihar vs. Gopi Kishore Prasad AIR 1960 SC 689, State of Orissa vs. Ram Narayan Das AIR 1961 SC 177, Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. us. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha (1980) 2 SCC 593, Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. vs. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha (1980) 2 SCC 593, Anoop Jaiswal vs. Govt. of India (1984) 2 SCC 369, Nepal Singh vs. State of U.P. (1980) 3 SCC 288, Commissioner, Food & Civil Supplies vs. Prakash Chandra Saxena (1994) 5 SCC 177, Commissioner, Food & Civil Supplies vs. Prakash Chandra Saxena (1994) 5 SCC 177, Chandra Prakash Shahi us. State of U.P. and Others (2000) 5 SCC 152, Union of India and Others vs. Mahaveer C. Singhvi (2010) 8 SCC 220, Dipti Prakash Banerjee vs. Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences (1999) 3 SCC 60, Pavanendra Narayan Verma vs. Sanjay Gandhi P.G.I. of Medical Sciences and Another (2002) 1 SCC 520) and State Bank of India and Others us. Palak Modi and Another (2013) 3 SCC 607, ruled that if the termination order is stigmatic and based or founded upon misconduct, would be a punitive order and court can lift the veil and declare that in the garb of termination simpliciter, the employer has punished an employee, for an act of misconduct. It was also held that if a probationer is discharged on the ground of misconduct or inefficiency or for similar reason, without a proper enquiry and without his getting a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the termination, it may amount to removal from service within the meaning of Article 311 (2). Hence, a regular departmental enquiry was required to be conducted before passing any adverse order. In the absence of which, the termination order would be inoperative and non-est in the eyes of law. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment reads as under: -

Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 57 - Full Document

Parshotam Lal Dhingra vs Union Of India on 1 November, 1957

The Hon'ble Apex Court while examining the contention of the appellant that his termination order was punitive and in violation of the principles of natural justice, after considering the various 23 Item No. 35/ C-2 O.A. No. 184/2019 judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974) 2 SCC 831, Radhey Shyam Gupta vs. U.P. State Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. and Another (1999) 2 SCC 21, State of U.P. vs. Kaushal Kishore Shukla (1991) 1 SCC 691, Triveni Shankar Saxena vs. State of U.P.(1992) Supp (1) SCC 524, State of U.P. vs. Prem Lata Misra (1994) 4 SCC 189, Samsher Singh (supra), Parshotam Lal Dhingra vs. Union of India AIR 1958 SC 36, State of Bihar vs. Gopi Kishore Prasad AIR 1960 SC 689, State of Orissa vs. Ram Narayan Das AIR 1961 SC 177, Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. us. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha (1980) 2 SCC 593, Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. vs. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha (1980) 2 SCC 593, Anoop Jaiswal vs. Govt. of India (1984) 2 SCC 369, Nepal Singh vs. State of U.P. (1980) 3 SCC 288, Commissioner, Food & Civil Supplies vs. Prakash Chandra Saxena (1994) 5 SCC 177, Commissioner, Food & Civil Supplies vs. Prakash Chandra Saxena (1994) 5 SCC 177, Chandra Prakash Shahi us. State of U.P. and Others (2000) 5 SCC 152, Union of India and Others vs. Mahaveer C. Singhvi (2010) 8 SCC 220, Dipti Prakash Banerjee vs. Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences (1999) 3 SCC 60, Pavanendra Narayan Verma vs. Sanjay Gandhi P.G.I. of Medical Sciences and Another (2002) 1 SCC 520) and State Bank of India and Others us. Palak Modi and Another (2013) 3 SCC 607, ruled that if the termination order is stigmatic and based or founded upon misconduct, would be a punitive order and court can lift the veil and declare that in the garb of termination simpliciter, the employer has punished an employee, for an act of misconduct. It was also held that if a probationer is discharged on the ground of misconduct or inefficiency or for similar reason, without a proper enquiry and without his getting a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the termination, it may amount to removal from service within the meaning of Article 311 (2). Hence, a regular departmental enquiry was required to be conducted before passing any adverse order. In the absence of which, the termination order would be inoperative and non-est in the eyes of law. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment reads as under: -

Supreme Court of India Cites 46 - Cited by 809 - Full Document

Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd vs Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha on 19 November, 1979

The Hon'ble Apex Court while examining the contention of the appellant that his termination order was punitive and in violation of the principles of natural justice, after considering the various 23 Item No. 35/ C-2 O.A. No. 184/2019 judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974) 2 SCC 831, Radhey Shyam Gupta vs. U.P. State Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. and Another (1999) 2 SCC 21, State of U.P. vs. Kaushal Kishore Shukla (1991) 1 SCC 691, Triveni Shankar Saxena vs. State of U.P.(1992) Supp (1) SCC 524, State of U.P. vs. Prem Lata Misra (1994) 4 SCC 189, Samsher Singh (supra), Parshotam Lal Dhingra vs. Union of India AIR 1958 SC 36, State of Bihar vs. Gopi Kishore Prasad AIR 1960 SC 689, State of Orissa vs. Ram Narayan Das AIR 1961 SC 177, Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. us. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha (1980) 2 SCC 593, Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. vs. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha (1980) 2 SCC 593, Anoop Jaiswal vs. Govt. of India (1984) 2 SCC 369, Nepal Singh vs. State of U.P. (1980) 3 SCC 288, Commissioner, Food & Civil Supplies vs. Prakash Chandra Saxena (1994) 5 SCC 177, Commissioner, Food & Civil Supplies vs. Prakash Chandra Saxena (1994) 5 SCC 177, Chandra Prakash Shahi us. State of U.P. and Others (2000) 5 SCC 152, Union of India and Others vs. Mahaveer C. Singhvi (2010) 8 SCC 220, Dipti Prakash Banerjee vs. Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences (1999) 3 SCC 60, Pavanendra Narayan Verma vs. Sanjay Gandhi P.G.I. of Medical Sciences and Another (2002) 1 SCC 520) and State Bank of India and Others us. Palak Modi and Another (2013) 3 SCC 607, ruled that if the termination order is stigmatic and based or founded upon misconduct, would be a punitive order and court can lift the veil and declare that in the garb of termination simpliciter, the employer has punished an employee, for an act of misconduct. It was also held that if a probationer is discharged on the ground of misconduct or inefficiency or for similar reason, without a proper enquiry and without his getting a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the termination, it may amount to removal from service within the meaning of Article 311 (2). Hence, a regular departmental enquiry was required to be conducted before passing any adverse order. In the absence of which, the termination order would be inoperative and non-est in the eyes of law. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment reads as under: -

Supreme Court of India Cites 60 - Cited by 777 - V R Iyer - Full Document

Anoop Jaiswal vs Government Of India & Anr on 24 January, 1984

The Hon'ble Apex Court while examining the contention of the appellant that his termination order was punitive and in violation of the principles of natural justice, after considering the various 23 Item No. 35/ C-2 O.A. No. 184/2019 judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974) 2 SCC 831, Radhey Shyam Gupta vs. U.P. State Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. and Another (1999) 2 SCC 21, State of U.P. vs. Kaushal Kishore Shukla (1991) 1 SCC 691, Triveni Shankar Saxena vs. State of U.P.(1992) Supp (1) SCC 524, State of U.P. vs. Prem Lata Misra (1994) 4 SCC 189, Samsher Singh (supra), Parshotam Lal Dhingra vs. Union of India AIR 1958 SC 36, State of Bihar vs. Gopi Kishore Prasad AIR 1960 SC 689, State of Orissa vs. Ram Narayan Das AIR 1961 SC 177, Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. us. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha (1980) 2 SCC 593, Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. vs. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha (1980) 2 SCC 593, Anoop Jaiswal vs. Govt. of India (1984) 2 SCC 369, Nepal Singh vs. State of U.P. (1980) 3 SCC 288, Commissioner, Food & Civil Supplies vs. Prakash Chandra Saxena (1994) 5 SCC 177, Commissioner, Food & Civil Supplies vs. Prakash Chandra Saxena (1994) 5 SCC 177, Chandra Prakash Shahi us. State of U.P. and Others (2000) 5 SCC 152, Union of India and Others vs. Mahaveer C. Singhvi (2010) 8 SCC 220, Dipti Prakash Banerjee vs. Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences (1999) 3 SCC 60, Pavanendra Narayan Verma vs. Sanjay Gandhi P.G.I. of Medical Sciences and Another (2002) 1 SCC 520) and State Bank of India and Others us. Palak Modi and Another (2013) 3 SCC 607, ruled that if the termination order is stigmatic and based or founded upon misconduct, would be a punitive order and court can lift the veil and declare that in the garb of termination simpliciter, the employer has punished an employee, for an act of misconduct. It was also held that if a probationer is discharged on the ground of misconduct or inefficiency or for similar reason, without a proper enquiry and without his getting a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the termination, it may amount to removal from service within the meaning of Article 311 (2). Hence, a regular departmental enquiry was required to be conducted before passing any adverse order. In the absence of which, the termination order would be inoperative and non-est in the eyes of law. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment reads as under: -

Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 303 - E S Venkataramiah - Full Document

Search Results Page

Refine Search

Search Results