Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 228 (1.51 seconds)
Documents citing M.S. Bindra vs Union Of India And Ors on 1 September, 1998

Kanaiyalal Maneklal Raval vs State Of Gujarat on 11 October, 1999

16. I find sufficient merits in this contention. Only on the basis of this charge, more so when it is not proved, no such opinion could have been formed by a reasonable person to hold the integrity of the petitioner to be doubtful. Only on the basis of allegation, without there being any material on the record, as said by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.S. Bindra vs. Union of India (supra) as well as in the case of State of Gujarat vs. S.C. Shah (supra), no such opinion could have been formed. There is no material on the record on the basis of which an opinion could have been formed that the integrity of the petitioner is doubtful and in the absence of the same same, rightly the learned counsel for the petitioner contended it is a case which is based on no evidence or the order is perverse.
Gujarat High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - S K Keshote - Full Document

Shri Narain Saxena vs Principal Secretary (Tax And ... on 18 August, 2005

25. Undoubtedly, in M/s. Bindra v. Union of India and Ors., , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that a person does not become corrupt over night, and such an order should not be passed mechanically on such entry. The service record produced by the respondent authority made it clear that vide order dated 24th May, 1980 an adverse entry was recorded against the petitioner in a case of insubordination and misbehaviour; again in 1991, adverse entry was given to the petitioner which remained in tact. The petitioner had been given the punishment after inquiry and warning, withholding one annual increment, vide order dated 24th March, 2001. Integrity of the petitioner has been found doubtful by the Principal Secretary of the Department vide order dated 5th May, 2001 and serious observations were also made against him.
Allahabad High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

State Of J&K; And Others vs Subash Chander Raina on 6 February, 2018

19. Judicial review of an order of compulsory retirement, passed not by way of any punitive measure but for cleansing the administration of inefficient and corrupt public servants without attaching any stigma, has been the subject matter of adjudication in several cases before the Supreme Court as well as in this Court. It would be relevant to refer to the observations made by the Supreme Court at Paragraph No. 13 of the case titled "M.S. Bindra v. Union of India &Ors., (1998) 7 SCC 310", which is reproduced hereunder:-
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

State Of J&K; And Others vs Ghulam Mohi-Ud-Din Malik on 6 February, 2018

20. Judicial review of an order of compulsory retirement, passed not by way of any punitive measure but for cleansing the administration of inefficient and corrupt public servants without attaching any stigma, has been the subject matter of adjudication in several cases before the Supreme Court as well as in this Court. It would be relevant to refer to the observations made by the Supreme Court at Paragraph No. 13 of the case titled "M.S. Bindra v. Union of India &Ors., (1998) 7 SCC 310", which is reproduced hereunder:
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shiv Kant Tripathi S/O Late Shri ... vs State Of U.P. Through Its Secretary ... on 22 January, 2008

(3) SCC 593 Jugal Chandra Saikia v. State of Assam and Anr. and M.S. Bindra v. Union of India and Ors. he contended that in view of the law laid down therein and considering the service record of the petitioner, it is evident that there was no material to substantiate any allegation of corruption or dishonesty against the petitioner. Character Roll entries awarded during the period when the disciplinary inquiry was pending could not be treated to be adverse for the purpose of justifying the impugned order. Since there was no other material justifying formation of opinion that the petitioner has outlived his utility or is not a person who should be allowed to remain in service any more in public interest, the opinion formed by the respondents is clearly arbitrary and it vitiates the impugned order.
Allahabad High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - S Agarwal - Full Document

State Of J&K; & Ors. vs Ravi Kumar on 6 February, 2018

19. Judicial review of an order of compulsory retirement, passed not by way of any punitive measure but for cleansing the administration of inefficient and corrupt public servants without attaching any stigma, has been the subject matter of adjudication in several cases before the Supreme Court as well as in this Court. It would be relevant to refer to the observations made by the LPASW No.227/2017 Page 15 of 20 Supreme Court at Paragraph No. 13 of the case titled "M.S. Bindra v. Union of India &Ors., (1998) 7 SCC 310", which is reproduced hereunder:
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Janak Singh vs Chief District Medical Officer on 26 December, 2008

5. These tests came to be discussed by the apex court and this court (both single and Letters Patent Bench) and other High Courts in numerous cases reported as Baldev Raj Chandra V. Union of India, 1980(4) SCC 321, Baldev Raj Chandra V. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 70, H.C. Gagri V. State of Haryana, AIR 1987 SC 65, Brij Mohan Singh Chopra Vs State of Punjab, AIR 1987 SC 948, Baidyanath Mahapatra V. State of Orissa, AIR 1989 SC 2218, Ram Ekbal Sharma V. State of Bihar, 1990(3) SCC 504, Union of India V. Dulal Dutt, 1993 (2) SCC 179, S.Ramachandra Raju Vs. State of Orissa, 1994 Supp (3) SCC 424, State of J&K V. Jia Lal Gupta, 1994 SLJ 24, Chief General Manager, SBI V. Suresh Chandra Behera, AIR 1995 SCC 1745, K. Kandaswamy Vs. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 277, Allahabad Bank Officers Association V. Allahabad Bank, 1996(4) SCC 504, M.S. Bindra V. Union of India, 1998(7) SCC 310, M.S. Bindra v. Union of India, AIR 1998, SCC 3058, State of Gujarat V. Suryakant Chunilal Shah, 1999(1) SCC 529, State of Gujrat V. Umedbhai M. Patel, AIR 2001 SC 1109, State of U.P V. Chater Sen, 2005(9) SCC 592, Pritam Singh V. Union of India, 2005(9) SCC 748, Ashok Kumar Jain Vs. State of J&K & ors. LPA Nos.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - M A Mir - Full Document

Ram Dass vs State Of on 24 September, 2010

The question involved is whether the impugned compulsory retirement order is legally correct? The Apex Court and this Court in various cases reported as Baldev Raj Chandra V. Union of India, 2 1980(4) SCC 321, Baldev Raj Chandra V. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 70, H.C. Gagri V. State of Haryana, AIR 1987 SC 65, Brij Mohan Singh Chopra Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1987 SC 948, Baidyanath Mahapatra V. State of Orissa, AIR 1979 SC 2218,Ram Ekbal Sharma V. State of Bihar, 1990(3) SCC 504, Union of India V. Dulal Dutt, 1993 (2) SCC 179, S. Ramachandra Raju V. State of Orissa, 1994 Supp (3) SCC 424, State of J&K V. Jia Lal Gupta, 1994 SLJ 234, Chief General Manager, SBI V. Suresh Chandra Behera, AIR 1995 SCC 1745, K.K.Kandaswamy V. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 277, Allahabad Bank Officers Association V. Allahabad Bank, 1996 (4) SCC 504, M.S.Bindra V. Union of India, 1998(7) SCC 310, M.S.Bindra V. Union of India, AIR 1998 SC 3058, State of Gujarat V. Suryakant Chunilal Shah, 1999(1) SCC 529, State of Gujarat V. Umedbhai M. Patel, AIR 2001 SC 1109, State of U.P V. Chater Sen, 2005 (9) SCC 592, Pritam Singh V. Union of India, 2005 (9) SCC 748, Ashok Kumar Jain V. State of J&K & Ors. LPA Nos.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - M A Mir - Full Document

Mohd Yunas vs State Of Punjab on 9 December, 2010

The Apex Court and this Court in various cases reported as Baldev Raj Chandra V. Union of India, 1980(4) SCC 321, Baldev Raj Chandra V. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 70, H.C. Gagri V. State of Haryana, AIR 1987 SC 65, Brij Mohan Singh Chopra Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1987 SC 948, Baidyanath Mahapatra V. State of Orissa, AIR 1979 SC 2218,Ram Ekbal Sharma V. State of Bihar, 1990(3) SCC 504, Union of India V. Dulal Dutt, 1993 (2) SCC 179, S. Ramachandra Raju V. State of Orissa, 1994 Supp (3) SCC 424, State of J&K V. Jia Lal Gupta, 1994 SLJ 234, Chief General Manager, SBI V. Suresh Chandra Behera, AIR 1995 SCC 1745; K.K.Kandaswamy V. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 277; Allahabad Bank Officers Association V. Allahabad Bank, 1996 (4) SCC 504; M.S.Bindra V. Union of India, 1998(7) SCC 310; M.S.Bindra V. Union of India, AIR 1998 SC 3058, State of Gujarat V. Suryakant Chunilal Shah, 1999(1) SCC 529, State of Gujarat V. Umedbhai M. Patel, AIR 2001 SC 1109, State of U.P V. Chater Sen, 2005 (9) SCC 592, Pritam Singh V. Union of India, 2005 (9) SCC 748, State of J&K &b ors., Vs. Gh. Rasool Magray, SLP No. 3369/2010 date of decision: 16th of August 2010; Ashok Kumar Jain V. State of J&K & Ors. LPA Nos.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - M A Mir - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next