Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (2.33 seconds)Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
B. D. Gupta vs State Of Haryana on 18 September, 1972
14. Reference in this connection may be made to decision of the Apex Court in B.D. Gupta v. State of Haryana. . In this case the Court made it clear that where enquiry is dropped or charge was withdrawn, the case cannot fall in the category of 'not fully exonerated' because by withdrawing proceedings in respect of one of the charge Govt. made it impossible for applicant to get him fully exonerated. The case arose under Rule 7.3 of Punjab Civil Service Rule which was para materia with Rule 54 of the Fundamental Rules which provided that
The Management Of Hotel Imperial, New ... vs Hotel Workers' Union on 21 May, 1959
22. Position of law where suspension is authorised under terms of service may be stated thus. Where there is power conferred on the employer to suspend an employee, whether under express form in the contract or under the rules governing the terms and conditions of service, the order of suspension has the effect of temporarily suspending the relation of master and servant, without terminating it, with the consequence that employee is not bound to render the service and the employer is not bound to pay. In such a case employee is not entitled to receive any payment at all from the employer, unless terms of condition envisages some payment as subsistence allowance. This principle was enunciated in Management of Imperial Hotel, New Delhi v. Hotel Workers Union and R.P. Kapur v. U.O.I, and Anr. and v.P. Gindroniya v. State of M.P. .
Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
R.P. Kapur vs Union Of India And Anr on 19 November, 1963
22. Position of law where suspension is authorised under terms of service may be stated thus. Where there is power conferred on the employer to suspend an employee, whether under express form in the contract or under the rules governing the terms and conditions of service, the order of suspension has the effect of temporarily suspending the relation of master and servant, without terminating it, with the consequence that employee is not bound to render the service and the employer is not bound to pay. In such a case employee is not entitled to receive any payment at all from the employer, unless terms of condition envisages some payment as subsistence allowance. This principle was enunciated in Management of Imperial Hotel, New Delhi v. Hotel Workers Union and R.P. Kapur v. U.O.I, and Anr. and v.P. Gindroniya v. State of M.P. .
State Of Maharashtra vs Chandrabhan Tale on 7 July, 1983
25. Reference in this connection may also be made to State of Maharashtra v. Chandrabhen Tale . If was a case where a nominal subsistence allowance of Re. 1/- was paid to the employee under suspension during pendency of his appeal against an order of conviction because he was on bail, under proviso to Rule 151 and was not paid his normal subsistence allowance. The Court upheld the contention raised with reference to Articles 14, 16, 21 and 311(2) of the Constitution challenging the validity of such provisions providing reduced subsistence allowance which is Illusory and meaningless on the ground that reduction in normal subsistence allowance to an employee who is prohibited from engaging himself in any other vocation during the period of suspension contravenes Article 21 and also Articles 14 and 16 being unreasonable and directed that normal subsistence allowance must be paid irrespective of whether he is undergoing imprisonment or on bail, and said proviso to Rule 151 envisaging paying a nominal subsistence allowance of Re. 1/- was held to be unreasonable, unconstitutional and void.
M. Gopala Krishna Naidu vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 August, 1967
9. Reading of the aforesaid order reveals that it is founded solely on the ground of compulsory retirement of the petitioner appellant, and dropping of the enquiry. The order of compulsory retirement has since been set aside twice over. It records no satisfaction of the competent officer that suspension of the employee was not wholly unjustified or that the delinquent is not fully exonerated. The order does not appear to have been made after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as it is necessarily required to be given. That is the law Lald down by Apex Court in M. Gopala Krishna Naidu v. State of M.P. and followed in B.D. Gupta v. State of Haryana wherein the Court referring the corresponding provisions of Rule 54 of Fundamental Rules had held that order under Rule 54 must depend on the examination by the authority of all the facts arid circumstances of the case and forming his opinion therefrom of two factual findings, whether the employee was fully exonerated, and in the case of suspension whether it was wholly unjustified. Besides an order under the Rule shall obviously affect the Govt. servant adversely if it is made under Clauses (3) and (5). Such an order resulting in pecuniary loss to the Govt. servant must be held to be an objective rather than a subjective function. The very nature of the function implies duty to act judicially. In such a case if any opportunity to show cause against such a proposed action is not given, the action is liable to be struck down as invalid. The order singularly fails to disclose either subjective or objective satisfaction about fundamental fact for making an order under Sub-Rules (3) and (5). Therefore, it has to be held invalid and no deduction or recovery of subsistence allowance be made in pursuance of such order.
Article 311 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Union Of India (Uoi) vs T.L. Dakshinamurthy on 2 July, 1974
In U.O.I. v. T.L. Dakshinamurthy the Court considered the case wherein a railway servant was charged with attempting to sell gunny bags belonging to Railways and was placed under suspension. However without holding any enquiry into these charges services of petitioner were terminated by an order of discharge simplicitor under the terms of agreement. The employee was not paid full wages for suspension period. The Court while found that under the Rules an order for termination simplicitor could be made, but as the order of suspension had not been revoked, that order continued to remain in force resulting in loss of 50% of employee's remuneration. For this reason the order was held to be punitive and violative of Article 311. The Court said: