Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 84 (0.73 seconds)
Documents citing Center For Public Interest Litigation ... vs Union Of India And Anr on 6 October, 2005

R.Perachi vs The Hon'Ble Principal District Judge on 28 August, 2008

34. Day in and day out we are able to see that petition-mongers are growing in large numbers and addressing anonymous petitions to the authorities with bald and baseless allegations, without any specifications and even without offering their name and address and not even signing the petitions, thus interfering in the administration, has become the order of the day and if the administration acts merely based on such anonymous petitions, that too to the detriment of the public servants, without any other basis or evidence, it will impair the performance of the officers and staff having far-reaching consequences on the society, besides shaking their confidence in the entire system. Making allegations is very easy, and rebutting the same is very difficult. The motive behind such anonymous petitions has to be examined by the employer, before proceeding on such anonymous petitions, since as has been cautioned by the Honourable Apex Court in CENTRE FOR PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION vs. UNION OF INDIA [(2005) 8 SCC 202], grievances can be made or allegations can be levelled for ulterior motive or with the intention of damaging the reputation of an officer.
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 3 - E D Rao - Full Document

Bipin Kumar vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 16 September, 2019

In Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India [(2005) 8 SCC 202 : (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 23] , this Court declared the dictum that State actions causing loss are actionable under public law. This is a result of innovation, a new tool with the courts which are the protectors of civil liberties of the citizens and would ensure protection against devastating results of State action. The principles of public accountability and transparency in State action are applicable to cases of executive or statutory exercise of power, besides requiring that such actions also not lack bona fides. All these principles enunciated by the Court over a passage of time clearly mandate that public officers are answerable for both their inaction and irresponsible actions. If what ought to have been done is not done, responsibility should be fixed on the erring officers; then alone, the real public purpose of an answerable administration would be satisfied."
Patna High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - R R Prasad - Full Document

Mahavir Singh vs State & Ors on 3 December, 2018

In cases under the general penal law against the public servant, the necessity (or otherwise) of sanction under Section 197 Cr. PC depends on the factual aspects. The test in the latter case is of the "nexus" between the act of commission or omission and the official duty of the public servant. To commit an offence punishable under law can never be part of the official duty of a public servant. It is too simplistic an approach to adopt and to reject the necessity of sanction under Section 197 Cr. PC on such reasoning. The "safe and sure test", as laid down in the case of Centre for Public Interest Litigation (supra), is to find if the omission or neglect to commit the act complained of would have made the public servant answerable for charge of dereliction of his official duty. He may have acted "in excess of his duty", but if there is a "reasonable connection"
Delhi High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - R K Gauba - Full Document

J.S.B. Chandel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 January, 2022

In the case of Centre For Public Interest 44 M.Cr.C. No.14484/2012, 4368/2013 & 34749/2019 Litigation (supra), the Supreme Court has elucidated the intention for giving protection under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. to public servant and expressed the "Official Duty" and observed the applicability of Section 197 Cr.P.C. in case prima facie it is found the act or omission for which the accused was charged had reasonable connection with regard to discharge of official duties. The view of the Supreme Court expressed in the said case is as under :-
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 46 - Cited by 4 - S Dwivedi - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next