SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(SC) 962

FAIZAN UDDIN, G.B.PATTANAIK, K.RAMASWAMY
State Of U. P. – Appellant
Versus
Kamla Devi – Respondent


ORDER

Leave granted.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Though the respondent was appointed on February 14, 1972 on ad hoc basis, she was posted at different places during which period she remained either on leave or absconded from duty, except joining the places nearer to her native place Lakhimpur Kheri. Consequently, authorities had taken action on September 23, 1980 to terminate her service in terms of letter of appointment. The respondent had approached the Tribunal for reinstatement with back wages. The Tribunal has set aside the order of termination holding that the termination is violative of Article 311(2) of the Constitution since no enquiry was conducted against the respondent. The same came to be upheld by the High Court in the impugned order in Writ  Petition No.1589(SS)/94 passed on April 5, 1994.

3. The question, therefore, is : whether it is necessary for the Government to conduct an enquiry as contemplated under Article 311(2) read with the statutory rules ? In the State of U.P., there are statutory rules, viz., U.P. Temporary Government Services Rules, 1975. Rule 14(a) of the said Rules provides for termin




Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top