Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 197 (1.48 seconds)
Documents citing Baldev Raj Chadha vs Union Of India & Ors on 18 August, 1980

Paras Nath Chaturvedi Son Of Late ... vs The Addl. Director, Medical Health And ... on 22 April, 2004

In the light of the observations made in (R.P. Suri v. Union of India, (1986) ATC 323, relying on the judgments of the Supreme Court in (Smt.) S.R. Venkataraman v. Union of India, AIR 1979 SC 49 (review committee being influenced by extraneous considerations); Hans Raj v. State of Punjab, (1985) 1 SCC 134 (non-application of mind); and Baldev Raj Chadha v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 70 (in regard to point (iv) above).
Allahabad High Court Cites 53 - Cited by 1 - R B Misra - Full Document

Mohd Yunas vs State Of Punjab on 9 December, 2010

6. Learned advocate for the respondent relied on a decision in the case of Baldeve Raj Chandra V. Union of India (1981) 1 SCR 430 AIR 1981 SC 70). In that case, the appellant was compulsorily retired on the basis of his poor performance many years ago. He had been allowed to cross the efficiency bar and there was nothing adverse in his service record for the past five years. The Court said that the order of compulsory retirement could not be sustained as it ignored relevant material. This judgment has no application to the facts of the present case. 13. While viewing this case from the next angle for judicial scrutiny i.e., want of evidence or material to reach such a conclusion, we may add that want of any material is almost equivalent to the next situation that from the available material no reasonable man would reach such a conclusion. While evaluating the materials the authority should not altogether ignore the reputation in which the officer was held till recently. The maxima Nemo Firut Repente Turpissiums (no one becomes dishonest all of a sudden) is not unexceptional but still it is salutary guideline to judge human conduct, particularly in the field of Administrative Law. The authorities should not keep the eyes totally closed towards the overall estimation in which the delinquent officer was held in the recent past by those who were supervising him earlier. To dunk an officer into the puddle of doubtful integrity it is not enough that the doubt fringes on a mere hunch. The doubt should be of such a nature as would reasonably and consciously be entertain able by a reasonable man on the given material.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - M A Mir - Full Document

Parshottam Singh vs Chief District Medical Officer on 8 April, 2010

6. Learned advocate for the respondent relied on a decision in the case of Baldeve Raj Chandra V. Union of India (1981) 1 SCR 430 AIR 1981 SC 70).In that case, the appellant was compulsorily retired on the basis of his poor performance many years ago. He had been allowed to cross the efficiency bar and there was 11 nothing adverse in his service record for the past five years. This Court said that the order of compulsory retirement could not be sustained as it ignored relevant material. This judgment has no application to the facts of the present case. 13. While viewing this case from the next angle for judicial scrutiny i.e., want of evidence or material to reach such a conclusion, we may add that want of any material is almost equivalent to the next situation that from the available material no reasonable man would reach such a conclusion. While evaluating the materials the authority should not altogether ignore the reputation in which the officer was held till recently. The maxima Nemo Firut Repente Turpissiums (no one becomes dishonest all of a sudden) is not unexceptional but still it is salutary guideline to judge human conduct, particularly in the field of Administrative Law. The authorities should not keep the eyes totally closed towards the overall estimation in which the delinquent officer was held in the recent past by those who were supervising him earlier. To dunk an officer into the puddle of doubtful integrity it is not enough that the doubt fringes on a mere hunch. That doubt should be of such a nature as would reasonably and consciously be entertain able by a reasonable man on the given material. Mere possibility is hardly sufficient to assume that it would have happened. There must be preponderance of probability for the reasonable man to entertain doubt regarding that possibility.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - M A Mir - Full Document

Parshottam Singh vs Chief District Medical Officer on 8 April, 2010

"6. Learned advocate for the respondent relied on a decision in the case of Baldeve Raj Chandra V. Union of India (1981) 1 SCR 430 AIR 1981 SC 70).In that case, the appellant was compulsorily retired on the basis of his poor performance many years ago. He had been allowed to cross the efficiency bar and there was nothing adverse in his service record for the past five years. This Court said that the order of compulsory retirement could not be sustained as it ignored relevant material. This judgment has no application to the facts of the present case."
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - M A Mir - Full Document

Bipra Charan Kar vs Chief General Manager, State Bank Of ... on 24 January, 2003

In Baldev Raj Chadha v. Union of India (supra) cited by Mr. Acharya, learned counsel for the petitioner the Supreme Court found that the adverse entries of the petitioner for the years 1961-62 to the end of 1970 had been taken into consideration and the petitioner had been compulsorily retired on the basis of the said adverse entries whereas the petitioner in the said case had no adverse entries during the last five years immediately before the compulsory retirement, i.e. during 1971-72, 1972-73, 1973-74, 1974-1975 and 1975- 1976 till the date of his retirement from the service on August 27, 1975 and the petitioner had been allowed to cross Efficiency Bar and had been paid maximum salary in the scale. On these facts, the Supreme Court held that the order of compulsory retirement fails because vital material, relevant to the decision has been ignored and obsolete material, less relevant to the decision has influenced the decision. In the present case, on the other hand, the adverse entries/ features of the service records of the petitioner during the years and months just prior to the impugned orders not to extend the service of the petitioner have been taken into consideration and these adverse entries are obviously relevant entries and not entries which were obsolete and not relevant to the decision.
Orissa High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 1 - A K Patnaik - Full Document

G.Kalavathi vs The Chief Secretary To Government on 15 March, 2024

In the case of Baldev Raj Chadha vs. Union of India and others, reported in (1980) 4 SCC 321, the Supreme Court made certain observations in general. However, in the present case, the respondents have considered the past records of the petitioner, her integrity, over all reputation of the petitioner in the Judicial Department and arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner deserved to be retired compulsorily in public interest. Thus, the decision making process in the present case satisfied the requirements to invoke F.R. 56(2) .
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - S M Subramaniam - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next