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

1994 Supreme(SC) 522

K.RAMASWAMY, M.N.VENKATACHALIAH
Commissioner, Food And Civil Supplies, Lucknow, U. P. – Appellant
Versus
Prakash Chandra Saxena – Respondent


Advocates:
A.K.SRIVASTAVA, D.V.Sehgal, S.A.SYED

ORDER

1. Delay condoned. Leave granted.

2. Heard counsel for the parties. Respondent 1, while was working as Senior Inspector, District Supply Office, Lucknow, his services were terminated by proceedings dated 14-7-1965 :

"The services of Shri Prakash Chandra Saxena, Senior Inspector, District Supply Office, Lucknow are terminated with effect from the date of service upon him of this order. He shall be paid one months pay in lieu of notice."

The said proceedings were challenged by Respondent 1 in the year 1978 by filing a claim petition before the Service Tribunal which was initially rejected by the Tribunal on the ground of delay. But the High Court remitted the matter for decision on merits and the Tribunal held that the order of termination had been made by way of punishment without enquiry and hence violated Article 311(2) of the Constitution. When it was challenged in Writ Petition No. 2016 of 1991 filed by the appellant, the High Court dismissed it by its order dated 5-3-1993, following the decision of this Court in Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab {(1974) 2 SCC 831} wherein it had been held that the Court had to lift the veil and find whether the ground of termination was the fo



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