1000 TIT BITS ON DISCIPLINE -129
REMOVAL OR DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE
IMPORTANT CASE LAW
The termination in the following cases was held not to amount to ‘Dismissal or Removal within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution.
511. Termination of service of ad-hoc or temporary Government servant on assessment of suitability on consideration of adverse entries in his confidential record [Triveni Shanker Saxena v. State of U.P., 1992 AIR SCW 110; State of U.P. v. Kaushal Kishore Shukla, (1991)1 SCC 691].
512. Termination of temporary employment in accordance with the provisions of departmental rules e.g., Rule 5 of the Temporary Service Rules or other similar rules, or in terms of his contract [Satish Anand v. Union of India, AIR 1953 SC 250]
513. Where the probation of a Lecturer in Surgical Oncology was terminated because he was not found suitable on his overall performance assessment [Governing Council, K.N. Institute of Oncology v. Pandurang Godwalkar, 1992 AIR SCW 3297).
514. Termination of service under the Safeguarding of National Security Rules [P. Balakotaiah v. Union of India, AIR 1958 SC 232].
515. Where the order of dismissal was subsequently changed into that of a discharge simpliciter. It was held that the order no more carried a stigma [Shashi Chowdhury v. State of J&K, SLR (1969) SC 236].
516. Where the employer used the contractual powers to get rid of a cantankerous employee, not desirable to be retained in service (D.T.U. v. Balbir Saran, AIR 1971 SC 836]
517. Termination for not possessing requisite qualifications for the post on date of appointment [Ravinder Sharma v. State of Punjab, (1995)1 SCC 138). Such appointment is clearly against the rules, no estoppel could arise. (ibid.)
518. Termination on medical ground of physical incapacity (Jagannath Ghose v. D.F.O., Malda, Lab. IC 1975 Cal. 91]. However, in Narendra Kumar Chandla v. State of Haryana, (1994)4 SCC 460, the Supreme Court observed that the employer must make every endeavour to adjust him in a post in which the employee would be suitable to discharge the duties. As far as possible the absorption should be in an equivalent post. His pay should also be protected
519. Termination of service on abolition of the post to which he was specifically appointed [Ramanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 2641]. However, if the post abolished falls in a cadre, principle of last come first go' shall apply [Jawaharlal Nehru University v. K.S. Jawatkar, (1989) Supp. 1 SCC 680]
Post a Comment