|
1
|
MATHEW P THOMAS
VS
KERALA CIVIL
SUPPLYCORPORATION
2003 (96) FLR 1166 [SC]
|
1
2
3
|
A PROBATIONER’S SERVICE CAN BE TERMINATED IF IT IS WITHOUT STIGMA (TERMINATION SIMPLICITOR)
IT CANNOT BE TERMINATED WITHOUT A PROPER ENQUIRY IF IT CARRIES STIGMA
HOW TO DETERMINE WHETHER A CASE IS A SIMPLE DISCHARGE OR IS ONE INVOLVING STIGMA
|
1
a
b
2
3
|
THE APEX COURT HAS IN THE FOLLOWING TWO RECENT CASES ANALYSED THE EARLIER DECISIONS ON PROBATIONER SERVICE TERMINATION
DEEPTHI PRAKASH’S CASE [1999(8) FLR 687]
PAVEHENDRA NARAYAN’S CASE [2002(92) FLR 349]
IF THE TERMINATION ORDER IS FOUNDED ON COMPLAINT OF MISCONDUCT AND IT HAS BEEN INVESTIGATED BEHIND HIS BACK, IT COULD POSE STIGMA.
IF NO ENQUIRY OR FINDING WAS SOUGHT BUT COMPLAINT WAS MERELY THE MOTIVE FOR TERMINATION, THE TERMINATION WOULD BE IN ORDER
|
|
2
|
SS KAUSHAL
VS
STATE BANK OF INDIA
2003(1) LLJ 962
[HC-MP-DB]
|
1
2
|
UNDER SBI RULES A DISCIPLINARY ACTION INITIATED BEFORE SUPERANNUATION CAN BE CONTINUED EVEN AFTER DATE OF SUPERANNUATION AND EMPLOYEE IS DEEMED TO BE IN SERVICE
IS EMPLOYEE ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM SALARY FOR PERIOD OF ENQUIRY BEYOND THE SUPERANNUATION DATE
|
1
2
3
|
THE SERVICE RULE SAYS THAT THE EMPLOYEE SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE IN SERVICE FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTION PURPOSES
EMPLOYEE CANNOT CLAIM SALARY AND OTHER BENEFITS
AS AN INTERIM MEASURES ORDERED PAYMENT OF SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCE
|
|
3
|
LAKSHMI PRECISION
LTD
VS
RAM BHAGAT
2002(3) LLJ 516[SC]
|
1
2
3
|
MANY CERTIFIED STANDING ORDERS PROVIDE FOR PROVISIONS ON LOSS OR LIEN THAT IS EMPLOYEES SERVICES COMING TO AUTOMATIC END FOR OVER STAYAL OF LEAVE
IS THIS PROVISION LEGALLY VALID ?
THAT IS CAN AN EMPLOYEES SERVICES BE TERMINATED WITHOUT COMPLYING WITH PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE [WITHOUT HOLDING ENQUIRY]
|
1
2
|
ONE OF THE ESSENTIAL INBUILT REQUIREMENTS OF SERVICE LAW OR STANDING ORDERS IS THAT IT SHOULD COMPLY WITH PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE
ANY EMPLOYMENT TERMINATION WITHOUT COMPLYING WITH PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE WOULD BE ILLEGAL
|
