PRATIBHA vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA — C.A. No. 10397/2010
Case under Section III. Status: Disposed.
CNR: SCIN010173402009
Filing Date
09-Jun-2009
Registration No
C.A. No. 10397/2010
Diary Number
17340/2009
Order Date
08-Mar-2022
Document Type
ROP - of Main Case
Disposal Type
Dismissed
Last updated 05-Jul-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.PRATIBHA
Adv. P. N. PURI[P-1]
Respondent(s)
-
1.THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Adv. SACHIN PATIL[R-1] SACHIN PATIL[R-2] SACHIN PATIL[R-3]
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
08-Mar-2022
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
08-Mar-2022
Ordinary
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M. Sundresh
-
03-Mar-2022
Ordinary
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M. Sundresh
-
19-Feb-2020
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
23-Jul-2015
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
23-Jul-2015
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
13-May-2015
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
13-Apr-2015
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
13-Apr-2015
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
10-Apr-2015
Office Report - of Main CaseView PDF
-
11-Nov-2011
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
03-Dec-2010
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
01-Oct-2010
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
28-Jul-2010
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
05-Apr-2010
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
09-Feb-2010
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
27-Jul-2009
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
09-Jun-2009
Case filed
Registration No. C.A. No. 10397/2010
Case Summary: Pratibha v. The State of Maharashtra (C.A. No. 10397/2010) The Supreme Court dismissed Pratibha's appeal challenging her termination order dated June 3, 2005. The Court upheld the concurrent findings of the Tribunal and High Court, holding that termination during extended probation is not a punishable action requiring disciplinary procedures under Maharashtra Civil Services Rules, 1979. The Court found that the one-year probation extension itself indicated the employer's dissatisfaction with her performance, and termination was validly issued instead of confirmation. Final Order: Appeal dismissed on March 8, 2022. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts