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

2000 Supreme(SC) 1203

S.N.VARIAVA, V.N.KHARE
Chandra Deo Gautam – Appellant
Versus
State Of U. P. – Respondent


(1) LEAVE granted.

(2) THE appellant was appointed as a General Manager in the Uttar Pradesh Scheduled Castes Finance and Development Corporation Ltd. on temporary basis. Subsequently, by an order, dated 4.2.1985, his services were terminated. The appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court and was successful in obtaining an interim order, as a result of which he continued in service. Subsequently, the writ petition came up for hearing and the High Court found that there was no illegality in the order terminating the services of the appellant. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed": Against the said decision, the appellant is in appeal before us.

(3) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant strenuously urged that, in fact, the order of termination is an order of removal without giving an opportunity to show cause and, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. We find no merit in this contention. The order of termination does not cast any stigma and, moreover, the decision referred to in the order of termination also does not cast any stigma. The impugned order is an order of simplicitor termination and not an order of removal. Under such

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