Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.51 seconds)
Documents citing Govt. Of Andhra Pradesh& Anr vs C. Muralidhar on 22 July, 1997

Y.C. Rajwas vs Commandant, Central Industrial ... on 18 February, 1998

"The learned Counsel for the petitioner brought to my notice a latest judgment of the Supreme Court in Government of A.P. v. Muralidhar, (supra) and contended that in view of the said judgment of the Supreme Court, the departmental proceedings cannot go on since the petitioner has already been acquitted of the same charges by the Criminal Court. But this Court has been taking the view that even if a person is acquitted of the charges in a criminal case, the departmental proceedings would not be barred.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - U C Banerjee - Full Document

Mazhar Imam Afroj vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 7 February, 2001

7. In the instant case, it has also been argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that for the same charge a criminal case was also instituted against the petitioner in which final form was submitted to the Court of Special Judge on 22.1.1991 stating that no charge-sheet could be submitted for lack of sufficient evidence against the accused-persons and as such, the petitioner was exonerated from the charge by the Court dealing with the said criminal case and the proceedings was dropped. It has also been submitted that in view of law settled by the Apex Court in the case of Government of Andhra Pradesh and Anr. v. C. Muralidhar , a departmental proceedings itself could not have continued when the criminal case for same charge was dropped by the Court. The petitioner, if would have been given second show-cause notice, he would have brought the said fact to the notice of the disciplinary authority but great injustice has been clone by the denial of the second show-cause notice to the petitioner.
Patna High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Anand Darbari vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 28 July, 1999

54. Here again, the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court cannot be disputed by anybody. The point is narrowed down by the stand taken by the respondents that the first respondent was concerned only with 'the thrust'. Therefore, reverting back to the position with reference to the effect of the reports of the Committee and the CBI, once it is found that the allegations had been dealt with and the petitioner had been found 'not guilty' of any charge, the first respondent was not justified in law in issuing the charge sheet.
Delhi High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 3 - K Ramamoorthy - Full Document

A.B.V. Reddy vs The Deputy General Manager & ... on 12 October, 2012

In GOVERNMENT OF A.P. v. C. MURALIDHAR10 it was held by the Supreme Court that when charges in the disciplinary proceedings are self-same allegations, which are subject matter of criminal case, the disciplinary proceedings cannot be held. However, it is open for the disciplinary authority to proceed with the disciplinary case with reference to other charges.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - V V Afzulpurkar - Full Document

The Food Corporation Of India And ... vs Sudhir Khetarpal on 20 December, 2010

M.Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and another (1999) 3 S.C.C. 679, Senior Superintendent of Post Offices Pathanamthitta and others v. A. Gopalan (1997) 11 S.C.C. 239 and Govt. of Andhra Pradesh v. C. Muralidhar, (1997) 6 S.C.C. 594. On the basis of the aforesaid judgments, explanation offered in para 25 of the affidavit is wholly unacceptable and this plea highlights completely a casual approach. Therefore, we find that the learned Single Judge has not committed any error of law in quashing the charge sheet.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 1 - R Bahri - Full Document

Nagarjuna Grameena Bank vs Mandulla Beerappa on 13 November, 2002

In support of his contentions, Sri Srinivas Murthy relied on the decisions in Managing Director, ECU v. B. Karunakar, , R. Babu Rao v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., (DB), Government of A.P. v. C. Muralidhar, , K Srinivas v. Superintendent of Police, Medak District at Sangareddy, (DB), V. Rajamallaiah v. High Court of A.P., , State of U.P. v. Harendra Aroa, 2002 (95) FLR 451, and UCO Bank, Calcutta v. M. Venuranganath, 2002 (95) FLR 603.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 5 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1