JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Shrinivas Sakharam Dudhgaonkar – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. contractual arrangements permit termination without inquiry. (Para 1) |
| 2. petitioner's employment details and termination. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. arguments about the legality of appointment and termination. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. judicial scrutiny of appointment terms. (Para 6 , 8 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. employment terms derived from advertisements must align with statutes. (Para 7 , 9) |
| 6. participating in a selection process confirms acceptance of its terms. (Para 10 , 11 , 14) |
| 7. nature of termination (simpliciter vs. punitive). (Para 15 , 18 , 19) |
| 8. final ruling on the petitioner's termination and appointment. (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
JUDGMENT
Jagmohan Bansal, J. (Oral)
By this common order, both the petitions are disposed of as issues involved in both the petitions are interconnected. For the sake of convenience and with the consent of both sides, facts are borrowed from CWP-19997-2023.
2. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dated 05.09.2023 (Annexure P-20) whereby petitioner has been terminated and order dated 05.09.2023 (Annexure P-21) whereby petitioner has been relieved.
3. The brief facts of the case wh
Abhujit Gupta v. S.N.B. National Centre, Basic Sciences
Allahabad Bank Officers Association v. Allahabad Bank
Madan Lal v. State of Jammu and Kashmir AIR 1995 SC 1088
Mathew P. Thomas v. Kerala State Civil Supply Corporation Limited (2003) 3 SCC 263
Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India
Parvanendra Narayan Verma v. Sanjay Gandhi PGI of Medical Sciences
Rajasthan High Court v. Ved Priya (2021) 13 SCC 151
Ramesh Chandra Shah v. Anil Joshi
Sadananda Halo v. Momtaz Ali Sheikh
Somesh Thapliyal v. Vice Chancellor
State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh (2004) 11 SCC 743
Court ruled that contractual employees have no right to challenge terms post-acceptance and can be terminated without inquiry based on performance during contract period.
A temporary employee is entitled to the same protection under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India as permanent employees, especially against stigmatic termination without inquiry.
Termination of a probationary employee for unsatisfactory performance is lawful and non-stigmatic, requiring no formal inquiry or prior warning.
The court upheld the termination of a contractual employee as valid, emphasizing that rights are governed by the contract terms, and principles of natural justice do not apply in the same manner to c....
Termination of employment must adhere to statutory provisions ensuring natural justice, including providing an opportunity to respond to allegations.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the respondents must act fairly and justly, conduct a fair inquiry, and adhere to the principles of fair-play, good conscience, and natural ju....
Employers must clearly specify the nature of appointments in job advertisements; failure to do so leads to regularization of initially contractual positions when recruitment processes are followed.
Probationary employees possess statutory protections and cannot be terminated without following prescribed procedures under the governing statute, which mandates documented grounds for unsuitability ....
If misconduct is the foundation to pass the order, then an enquiry into misconduct should be conducted and an action according to law should follow. But if it is (sic) notice, it is not incumbent upo....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.