Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 174 (0.71 seconds)
Documents citing Delhi Development Authority vs H.C. Khurana on 7 April, 1993

Raj Karan Yadav vs High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad ... on 14 August, 2018

(emphasis supplied) Following the decision in Delhi Development Authority vs H.C. Khurana's case (supra), similar view has been taken by the Apex Court in Union of India Vs. Kewal Kumar's case (supra) Even in the decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner rendered in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Sangram Keshari Nayak's case (supra), the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of H.C. Khurana's case (supra) and Kewal Kumar's case (supra) were noticed with approval.
Allahabad High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

A.Jalender Reddy, S/O Sathi Reddy, Aged ... vs The State Of Telanana, Rep.By Its ... on 17 April, 2017

17. We may also point out, in this context, that in Delhi Development Authority v. H.C. Khurana [(1993) 3 SCC 196 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 736 : (1993) 24 ATC 763 : JT (1993) 2 SC 695] and Union of India v. Kewal Kumar [(1993) 3 SCC 204 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 744 : (1993) 24 ATC 770 : JT (1993) 2 SC 705] this Court found that the ratio in Jankiraman [(1991) 4 SCC 109 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 387 : (1993) 23 ATC 322] is applicable only to the situations similar to the cases discussed therein, and hence the Sealed Cover Procedure resorted to by DPC in those two cases was upheld by this Court. (emphasis supplied) 6.7.1.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - P N Rao - Full Document

Amiya Kanti Patnaik vs Revenue on 5 March, 2024

19. In disciplinary proceedings, it is after issue of charge sheet that the delinquent officer is termed as the 'charged officer' and similarly it is after charges are framed that the alleged offender is termed as 'the accused'. Sealed Cover Procedure is adopted when the stage of issue of charge sheet is reached See Delhi Development Authority vs H.C. Khurana [(1993) 3 SCC 196 ].
Central Administrative Tribunal - Cuttack Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sudheshwar Nath vs State Of Bihar And Ors. on 2 December, 1999

In Delhi Development Authority v. N.C. Khurana (supra), the promotion of the respondent was withheld applying the 'sealed cover procedure' on the ground that disciplinary proceeding had been initiated. The charge-sheet in that case had been framed on 11-7-90, and issued and dispatched on 13-7-90. The charge-sheet, however, could not be served as the respondent had proceeded on two months' leave. It was ultimately served on 25-1-91. In the meantime, the Departmental Promotion Committee had met on 28-11-90 and in view of the decision to initiate the proceeding following the sealed cover procedure passed over his case. It was argued on behalf of the respondent that the office memorandum dated 12-1-88 required actual service and not mere issuance of charge-sheet, as provided in the subsequent office memorandum dated 14-9-92, and since the service of the charge-sheet took place later on 25-1-91, the Departmental Promotion Committee should not have adopted the sealed cover procedure on 28-11-90. Rejecting the contention, the Supreme Court observed that the decision to initiate disciplinary proceeding against respondent had already been taken and charge-sheet had also been issued prior to 28-11-90 when the D.P.C. adopted the sealed cover procedure, and merely because the service of the charge-sheet was effected after that date, on account of his absence, the adoption of sealed cover procedure cannot be said to be illegal. It would be useful to quote the following passage which, though appearing as placitum at page 197 of the report, culls out the ratio of the decision:
Patna High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next