Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.55 seconds)

Amratbhai Lilabhai Desai & 6 vs State Of Gujarat & 2 on 25 September, 2017

20. The respondents are relying upon the decision  in the case of  Gautambhai Devshankar Dave v.  State of Gujarat reported in 2004(1) GLH 603  which   confirms   that   even   violation   of  principle of natural justice will not per se  sufficient for holding that particular order  is invalid and that the Court is required to  examine   the   decision   making   process   of   the  authority   in   the   totality   of   the   facts,  circumstances and evidence on record and the  Court is not expected to examine the reasons  of   the   authority   as   if   sitting   in   appeal,  since such position in law is well settled.  It   is   also   held   that   if   there   is   no  jurisdictional   error   in   the   impugned   order  nor is there any error apparent on the record  of the authority, since High Court does not  sit   as   an   Appellate   Authority,   interference  with   pure  findings  of  fact  and  appreciation  of   evidence   on   record,   even   different   view  may be possible is unwarranted.
Gujarat High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 2 - S G Shah - Full Document

C P Oza Decd.Thro.His Heirs & Lr'S vs Vijaynagar Education Society Thro ... on 5 August, 2022

19. The Tribunal after considering the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of State of U.P. and others v. Ramesh Chandra Mangalik reported in AIR 2002 SC 1241 as well as judgment of this Court in case of Gautambhai Devshankar Dave v. State of Gujarat reported in 2004(1) GLH 603 relied Page 22 of 27 Downloaded on : Fri Aug 05 21:27:29 IST 2022 C/SCA/25680/2006 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2022 upon by respondent school management as well as judgment of the Apex Court in case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Chintaman Sadashiva Waishampayan reported in AIR 1961 SC 1623 relied upon on behalf of the petitioner has held that the documents which the management has relied upon against the petitioner have been supplied to him. It was further observed that the petitioner has not been able to pinpoint the particular document and to demonstrate as to how such document was relevant and what prejudice is caused to the petitioner due to non supply of such document. The Tribunal has also rightly held that charge-sheet issued under the signature of Secretary of respondent no.1 is also not fatal to the inquiry as before there was no such rule which prohibit the Secretary of respondent no.1 to issue charge-sheet under his signature and charges are formulated by respondent no.1 school management. The Tribunal has therefore, held that petitioner was not able to point out any prejudice caused to him.
Gujarat High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - B D Karia - Full Document
1