Judgments
Akkamma & Ors. Versus Vemavathi & Ors.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VERSUS BABLU @ OM PRAKASH
DEVENDER BHASKAR & ORS. VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
Avneesh Chandan Gadgil & Anr. Versus Oriental Bank of Commerce & Ors.
Gudda @ Lal Sahab & Ors. vs. State of MP
Jhabbu & Ors. vs. State of MP
Gabbar @ Gopal s/o Devpuri Gusai Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Chandresh Shukla Vs. The Registrar, People’s University
Law laid down - The order should clearly reflect the reasons thereof, subsequent explanation or reasons justifying the impugned order not permissible. (See para-10) Recording of reasons for terminating the services in the impugned order is necessary, as the reasons are the heartbeat of any order. Non-speaking orders do not stand judicial scrutiny. (See para-9) Full Judgment
HAMID ALI KHAN (D) THROUGH LRS. & ANR VERSUS STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. Versus National South Indian River Interlinking Agriculturist Association
TATA Consultancy Services Limited Versus Vishal Ghisulal Jain, Resolution Professional, SK Wheels Private Limited
Avni Prakash Versus National Testing Agency (NTA) & Ors.
Viram @ Virma Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh
Uttar Pradesh Forest Corporation Lucknow & Ors. Versus Vijay Kumar Yadav & Anr.
Anil Kumar Soti & Ors. VERSUS State of U.P. through Collector Bijnore (U.P.)
State of U.P. Versus Chunni Lal & Ors.
State of Orissa & Ors. Versus Sakhi Bewa (Dead) Through LRs.
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED & ANR. VERSUS BAL KRISHAN SHARMA & ORS.
Rajesh Kumar Rathore vs. High Court of M.P. and another
Law laid down - Held:- when the services of a temporary employee or a probationer or contingency paid employee is brought to an end by passing innocuous order due to unsatisfactory nature of service or on account of an act for which some action is taken, but the termination is made in a simplicitor manner without conducting of inquiry or without casting any stigma on the employee, the provisions of Rule 9 of the Rules 1980 can be taken aid of. However, Full Judgment