Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 7809 (1.33 seconds)
Documents citing Syed Zaheer Hussain vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 4 December, 1998

Heera Mani vs State & Anr on 11 December, 2008

The decisions relied on by learned counsel for the petitioner turn on their own facts and are of no help to the petitioner for the reason that in the case of Syed Zaheer Hussain Vs. Union of India and Others (supra), the appellant therein remained unauthorisedly absent from 9.1.1985 to 15.1.1985 only for seven days and that was not a case of habitual absentee and therefore, the Apex Court did not interfere with the order of tribunal holding the punishment of dismissal disproportionate.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - H R Panwar - Full Document

A.Jothisankar vs Inspector General Of Police on 27 June, 2008

In Syed Zaheer Hussain, vs. Union of India and others, reported in AIR 1999 SC 3367, the Supreme Court tested the correctness of an order of dismissal from service imposed for unauthorised absence of a government servant. Considering the request of the employee, the Apex Court interfered with the imposition of penalty and directed the petitioner to be reinstated in service with 50% of backwages, from the date of dismissal till the date of passing of the order. In the above case, the appellant-government servant was unauthorisedly absent for about 7 days and therefore the Supreme court interfered with the quantum of punishment.
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 1 - S Manikumar - Full Document

Mirja Barkat Ali vs Inspector General Of Police, Allahabad ... on 24 May, 2002

In Syed Zahir Hussain v. Union of India and others. 1999 (2) AWC 1183 (SO : JT J999 (1) SC 319. the appellant therein was absent from duty from 9.1.1985 to 15.1.1985 unauthorisedly. When he tried to resume his duties, he was placed under suspension and after departmental enquiry, he was dismissed from service. The petitioner went to the Tribunal, which took a view that the punishment of dismissal was grossly disproportionate but declined to interfere in exercising of its jurisdiction. The Supreme Court after having considered the facts and circumstances of the case viewed that "the punishment of dismissal from service is too harsh and on the contrary, it is required to be substituted by an appropriate lesser punishment." With these observations, the Supreme Court passed the following order :
Allahabad High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 10 - R B Misra - Full Document

Chandra Prakash Proprietor M/S Ashna ... vs State Of U.P. & Anr. on 9 August, 2019

In backdrop of aforesaid decisions and keeping in view the request of learned counsel for the applicant, the application is disposed of with a direction to the trial Court that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the Court below within 15 days from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail may be considered and decided in view of the law laid down in "Hussain and Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. reported in MANU/SC/0274/2017, Amrawati's case (supra) as approved by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh's case (supra) as well as the dictum of this Court laid down in "Brahm Singh's case (supra).
Allahabad High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Pramod Kumar Rawat vs State Of U.P. & Anr. on 9 August, 2019

In backdrop of aforesaid decisions and keeping in view the request of learned counsel for the applicant, the application is disposed of with a direction to the trial Court that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the Court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail may be considered and decided in view of the law laid down in "Hussain and Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. reported in MANU/SC/0274/2017, Amrawati's case (supra) as approved by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh's case (supra) as well as the dictum of this Court laid down in "Brahm Singh's case (supra).
Allahabad High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Satyam Misrha vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home & Anr. on 9 August, 2019

In backdrop of aforesaid decisions and keeping in view the request of learned counsel for the applicant, the application is disposed of with a direction to the trial Court that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the Court below within 20 days from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail may be considered and decided in view of the law laid down in "Hussain and Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. reported in MANU/SC/0274/2017, Amrawati's case (supra) as approved by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh's case (supra) as well as the dictum of this Court laid down in "Brahm Singh's case (supra).
Allahabad High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mohd. Juned Kidwai And Another vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. on 3 May, 2024

11. There cannot be any doubt that the regular bail application of an accused person must be disposed of at the earliest and only requirement for the Court in order to dispose of the regular bail application is the sufficiency of material available before it and if that material is available on the very first day there is no harm in disposing of the regular bail application on the same day. Thus, this principle has also been highlighted by the Honb'el Supreme Court in Hussain and Ors (supra).
Allahabad High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Arumugam vs The Superintendent Of Police on 2 February, 2022

In (1999) 9 SCC 86 (Syed Zaheer Hussain v. Union of India and others) the deliquent Government servant was dismissed from service on the ground of unauthorised absence for 7 days. Observing that dismissal was too harsh, Supreme Court directed the Appellant to reinstate with continuity in service with all other benefits but limiting the back wages to 50% only for the period between dismissal to the date of passing of the order by the Court. In the present case, Petitioner was absent for 21 days. It is one of the clear instance where the punishment of dismissal from service is disproportionate to the charge.
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - M S Ramesh - Full Document

C.Nagarajan (Deceased) vs The State Of Tamilnadu on 3 March, 2022

In (1999) 9 SCC 86 (Syed Zaheer Hussain v. Union of India and others) the deliquent Government servant was dismissed from service on the ground of unauthorised absence for 7 days. Observing that dismissal was too harsh, Supreme Court directed the Appellant to reinstate with continuity in service with all other benefits but limiting the back wages to 50% only for the period between dismissal to the date of 10/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.11306 of 2016 passing of the order by the Court. In the present case, Petitioner was absent for 21 days. It is one of the clear instance where the punishment of dismissal from service is disproportionate to the charge.
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - M S Ramesh - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next