Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.22 seconds)
Documents citing Lrs. Of Late Shri Pukhraj Gehlot vs The Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate ... on 1 March, 2007

Revision vs Ujagar Singh on 15 March, 2010

In Pukhraj's case (supra), the appellant, was a Postal Clerk. He was allegedly kicked, in the abdomen and abused by a superior officer, when the former met the latter, with a view to request for cancellation of his transfer. The Apex Court, held that, the acts, attributed to the accused, in the complaint, filed by the complainant, did not come within the scope of official duty, and no sanction, under Section 197 Cr.P.C., was required. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable to the facts of the instant case. The order impugned, is, thus, illegal and liable to be set aside.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Nand Ram vs State And Anr. (2024:Rj-Jd:309) on 3 January, 2024

7. Before proceeding further, it is pertinent to address the reliance of learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgment in the case of LRs of Pukhraj Gehlot (supra). While agreeing with the observations made therein, it is also crucial to consider that the exclusive subjective satisfaction of the appointing authority should be evaluated in the specific facts and circumstances of each case. The cited judgment deals with a situation where the appointing authority overruled the opinion of the screening and review committees, ordering compulsory retirement despite their favorable opinion.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Poonam Chand Patwari vs State Of Raj. & Ors on 7 February, 2011

So far as the law laid down by this Court in LRs of late Shri Pukhraj Gehlot (supra) is concerned, suffice it to mention here that in the case aforesaid, this Court examined the record and reached at the conclusion that the appointing authority nowhere recorded his satisfaction to reach at a definite conclusion warranting exercise of the powers under Rule 53(1) of the Rules of 1996, that is not the position in the present case. In the instant matter, the Tribunal has examined the record thoroughly and found that the competent authority on the basis of the available material rightly formed an opinion that the petitioner has lost his utility for services. In such circumstance, I do not find any wrong with the order impugned that may warrant interference of this Court while exercising powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition for writ is dismissed accordingly.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - G Mathur - Full Document
1