Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 93 (0.93 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Punjab vs K. R. Erry & Sobhag Rai Mehta(With ... on 21 September, 1973

State vs . Dr. V.K. Mehta on 28 October, 2014

20. PW-8 Smt. Kamlesh Samson was examined on 01.09.2014 and deposed that she had gone to Mehta Nursing Home to get her son Nebulized as he was Asthmatic. She further deposed that at that time, one Dr. Mrs Bhola (name she does not remember however, she refreshed her memory just now) had come alone for some surgery and as she was working as a Nurse in AIIMS, she signed the consent form as there was no other relative accompanying the said patient, on humane grounds. She further deposed that one other person whose name she does not remember, who was a Sardar had also signed on the consent form. Thereafter, she left the Nursing Home with her son. Thereafter, she does not remember after how many days she was called by the police, but she was called with regard FIR No. 92/01 State Vs Dr. V.K. Mehta 6/8 to the incident that happened on the day on which she signed the consent form qua the patient. She further deposed that she had signed the consent form vide memo Ex. PW-8/A bearing his signature at point A as nobody was accompanied the patient. She further deposed that her statement was recorded by the police however, same was not signed by her.
Delhi District Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Union Of India And Others vs Lt. Gen. M.S. Sandhu, Pvsm (Retd.) on 24 April, 2001

In another case State of Punjab Vs. K.R. Erry and Sobhag Rai Mehta's case (supra) though the respondent was not joined in the administrative and judicial enquiry conducted by the court, the enquiries were held into the imputations of charge against the official and one of which was conducted by a Judge of the High Court. The facts are, therefore, distinguishable since his guilt was established in an administrative inquiry conducted by a Judge.
Delhi High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 2 - M A Khan - Full Document

S.Thirumalaiappan vs Secretary To Government on 11 October, 2011

The State Government's order directing reduction of pension of the employee of State of Punjab were set aside by this Court in State of Punjab v. K.R. Erry1 and in State of Punjab v. Iqbal Singh5 on the ground that the orders imposing deduction in the pension had been passed in violation of principles of natural justice as the affected employees had not been afforded opportunity of hearing. These decisions leave no scope for any doubt that the State Government is competent to direct reduction in pension after affording opportunity of hearing to the government servant.
Madras High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - K Chandru - Full Document

Pandian Roadways Corporation Ltd. vs The Principal District Judge And Ors. on 13 August, 1996

13. State of Punjab v. K. R. Erry (supra). In this case the Supreme Court has taken the view that "where a body or authority is judicial or where it has to determine a matter involving rights judicially because of express or implied provision, the principle of natural justice audi alteram partem applies." It also held that "where a body or authority is characteristically administrative the principle of natural justice is also liable to be invoked if the decision of that body or authority affects individual rights or interests." No decision taking is involved in the present case. This caseis also not applicable for the reasons given relating to .
Madras High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Smt. Ahmadi Usman vs State Of U.P. Thru' Secretary Education ... on 2 March, 2012

The State Govt.'s order directing reduction of pension of the employee of State of Punjab were set aside by this Court in State of Punjab v. K.R. Erry and Sebhag Rai Mehta (Supra) and in State of Punjab & Anr. v. Iqbal Singh, [1976] 3 SCR 360 on the ground that the orders imposing deduction in the pension had been passed in violation of principles of natural justice as the affected employees had not been afforded opportunity of hearing. These decisions leave no scope for any doubt that the State Govt. is competent to direct reduction in pension after affording opportunity of hearing to the Govt. servant."
Allahabad High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Brahma Datt Sharma And Anr on 25 February, 1987

The State Govt.'s order directing reduction of pension of the employee of State of Punjab were set aside by this Court in State of Punjab v. K.R. Erry and Sebhag Rai Mehta (Supra) and in State of Punjab & Anr. v. Iqbal Singh, [1976] 3 SCR 360 on the ground that the orders imposing deduction in the pension had been passed in viola- tion of principles of natural justice as the affected em- ployees had not been afforded opportunity of hearing. These decisions leave no scope for any doubt that the State Govt. is competent to direct reduction in pension after affording opportunity of hearing to the Govt. servant. The High Court was not justified in quashing the show cause notice. When a show cause notice is issued to a Govt. servant under a 453 statutory provision calling upon him to show cause, ordi- narily the Govt. servant must place his case before the authority concerned by showing cause and the courts should be reluctant to interfere with the notice at that stage unless the notice is shown to have been issued palpably without any authority of law. The purpose of issuing show cause notice is to afford opportunity of hearing to the Govt. servant and once cause is shown it is open to the Govt. to consider the matter in the light of the facts and submissions placed by the Govt. servant and only thereafter a final decision in the matter could be taken. Interference by the Court before that stage would be premature. The High Court in our opinion ought not have interfered with the show cause notice.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 967 - K N Singh - Full Document

Ramashray Singh vs Dy. Director Of Education ... on 17 February, 2012

The State Govt.'s order directing reduction of pension of the employee of State of Punjab were set aside by this Court in State of Punjab v. K.R. Erry and Sebhag Rai Mehta (Supra) and in State of Punjab & Anr. v. Iqbal Singh, [1976] 3 SCR 360 on the ground that the orders imposing deduction in the pension had been passed in violation of principles of natural justice as the affected employees had not been afforded opportunity of hearing. These decisions leave no scope for any doubt that the State Govt. is competent to direct reduction in pension after affording opportunity of hearing to the Govt. servant."
Allahabad High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - S Ambwani - Full Document

Ganesh Kashinathrao Gulve vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 22 April, 2022

In so far as the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case of State of Punjab Vs. K. R. Erry and Sobhag Rai Mehta (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, the question was whether officers could have been deprived of full pension without giving them reasonable opportunity to make their defence or not. In this case the petitioner was given full ::: Uploaded on - 22/04/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 23/04/2022 16:10:42 ::: (30) wp-8399-2020 opportunity by the authority post remand of the matter of this Court. Be that as it may, the authority could not have gone into the merits of the order of conviction passed by this Court first and confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme court. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute that his client was convicted of various serious offences and had already undergone punishment of life imprisonment awarded by this Court and upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme court.
Bombay High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document

Ram Babu Sahu vs State Of U.P. And Others on 10 February, 2012

The State Govt.'s order directing reduction of pension of the employee of State of Punjab were set aside by this Court in State of Punjab v. K.R. Erry and Sebhag Rai Mehta (Supra) and in State of Punjab & Anr. v. Iqbal Singh, [1976] 3 SCR 360 on the ground that the orders imposing deduction in the pension had been passed in violation of principles of natural justice as the affected employees had not been afforded opportunity of hearing. These decisions leave no scope for any doubt that the State Govt. is competent to direct reduction in pension after affording opportunity of hearing to the Govt. servant."
Allahabad High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 2 - S Ambwani - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next