Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.70 seconds)
Documents citing Dhirendra Kumar Rai vs State Of U.P.Thr. Prin Secy Home on 15 July, 2010

Dhirendra Kumar Verma vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home ... on 31 July, 2023

14. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Consequently, the order dated 20.04.2023 passed by the court of Additional Session Judge/Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Faizabad in Bail Application No. 457 of 2023 (Dhirendra Kumar vs. State of U.P.), arising out of FIR No. 02/2023 under Sections 376/504/506 I.P.C. and Section 3 (2) (v) SC/ST Act, Police Station Taarun, District Ayodhya is hereby reversed and set aside.
Allahabad High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - S Ahmed - Full Document

Dhirender Kumar Rai vs The State on 13 March, 2013

Therefore, the impugned order dated 6.7.2012 suffers from this technical defect, the complaint being with regard to warrant trial cases. Impugned order suffers from material irregularity and is not proper and same is set aside. The revision petition is allowed. Complaint filed by the petitioner be restored to its Dhirender Kumar Rai Vs State 3 original position subject to payment of Rs.500/- each to Delhi Legal Services Aid (North West), Rohini Courts, Delhi and Rohini Court Bar Association. The petitioner to appear before ld. trial court on 20.03.2013 at 10.00 a.m. The trial court record be returned along with the copy of this order. The order be sent to the server (www. delhidistrictcourts.nic.in). The revision file be consigned to the record room.
Delhi District Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Arvind Kumar Yadav vs State Of U.P. Thru Prin Secy Food Safety ... on 16 July, 2022

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Dhirendra Kumar Rai (supra), specially on paragraph 99 of the said judgment and has submitted that suspension order can be passed only when there are serious allegations that may warrant delinquent employee's removal, dismissal or termination . This Court has perused the impugned order of suspension and has noticed that there are serious allegations that the petitioner being licensing authority has distributed licenses in violation of statutory provisions has he has not followed the rules while distributing the said licenses and even various orders of the superior authorities have not been complied with by him.
Allahabad High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - A Mathur - Full Document

Jitendra Pal Singh vs State Of U.P. Through Prin. Secy. ... on 25 October, 2013

Further , each case of suspension is to be considered on its own merit and the nature of the allegation,gravity of the situation while placing the employee under suspension as the indelible impact it creates on the service for the continuance of the delinquent employee in service pending enquiry or contemplated enquiry or investigation ( State of Orrisa Vs. Bimal Kr. Mohanty , AIR 1994 SC 2296) In the case of Dhirendra Kumar Rai ( Supra) and after placing reliance on the decision given by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Orrisa Vs. Bimal Kr. Mohanty , AIR 1994 SC 2296 has held as under:-
Allahabad High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 1 - A Kumar - Full Document

Priyanka Yadav vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 9 December, 2020

The petitioner further claims that this Court has granted similar relief in Writ A No. 4470 of 2020 (Dhirendra Kumar Vs. State of UP and 4 others) by order dated 3.9.2020, Writ A No. 6131 of 2020 (Dharmendra Kumar and another Vs. State of UP and 4 others) by order dated 8.9.2020, Writ A No. 5370 of 2020 (Rekha and another Vs. State of UP and another) by order dated 25.8.2020 and Writ A No. 4305 of 2020 (Km. Varsha Vs. State of UP and 2 others) by order dated 16.6.2020.
Allahabad High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - P Bhatia - Full Document
1   2 Next