Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.45 seconds)
Documents citing Mohammed Alam Ibrahim Shaikh vs S.G. Suryavanshi, Dy. Commissioner Of ... on 10 August, 2005

Virendra Jatav vs The State Of M.P. on 18 April, 2022

8. The Division Bench of this Court recently in its decision dated 17.01.2022 in Writ Petition No.5530 of 2019 had an occasion to consider a case of non-appointment on the post of Judicial Officer by the High Court almost on the same ground. A criminal case was lodged against such candidate and he was not found "suitable" to be appointed on the post of Civil Judge, Class-II. This Court considered the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of Mohammed Ibrahim Vs. State of Maharashtra14 Commissioner of Police and Others Vs. Sandeep Kumar15, Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration and Others8, C. Ravichandran Iyer Vs. Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee16, State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Abhijeet Singh Pawar17 Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and Another Vs. Mehar Singh12, State of Madhya Pradesh and Others Vs. Parvez Khan11 and in para 8 of the decision it has been held as under:-
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 18 - R Malimath - Full Document

Shri Milind Hiraman Meshram vs The State Of Maharashtra Through The ... on 3 April, 2008

In this behalf, he relied on 1992 Cr.LJ 3983 Santosh Ramprasad Sharma v. Deputy Commissioner, Crime Branch, and Anr. He has further relied on the observations of this Court in Alam Ibrahim Shaikh v. S.G. Suryavansi, Dy. Commissioner of Police, Thane and Ors., and also on unreported judgment of this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 10/96 Raju Mahadeorao Shende v. State of Maharashtra and Anr., wherein it was held that after service of notice, 5 months time to dispose of the proceedings i.e. for passing final orders was taken that order was held to be bad. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant that there was no satisfactory and sufficient contents appearing from show-cause notice that the witnesses were not coming forward to depose against the applicant, as such final order on that basis was illegal.
Bombay High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 1 - S R Dongaonkar - Full Document

Sunil Kumar S/O Shri Prahlad Singh vs Joint Commissioner Of Police on 29 July, 2015

iv) Misconduct literally means wrong or improper conduct, i.e., conduct in violation of a definite rule of action. It ordinarily means failure to do what is required of a person to be done. An omission to do what is required of a person to do may therefore constitute misconduct even though the person has not acted wilfully or maliciously, as held in the case of Shaikh Mohammad vs. G.G. in Council, AIR 1954 Nag. 337. [Indian Railways Act (9 of 1890), S.72]
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shri Aditya Nashier vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation on 28 August, 2015

iv) Misconduct literally means wrong or improper conduct, i.e., conduct in violation of a definite rule of action. It ordinarily means failure to do what is required of a person to be done. An omission to do what is required of a person to do may therefore constitute misconduct even though the person has not acted wilfully or maliciously, as held in the case of Shaikh Mohammad vs. G.G. in Council, AIR 1954 Nag. 337. [Indian Railways Act (9 of 1890), S.72]
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Pratiksha Pravin Raut And Anr vs Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Div. ... on 4 September, 2017

16. The Division Bench in Sureshkumar (supra) has made reference to decision of Nagpur High Court (as it then was) in Shaikh Mohammad Vs. G.G. In Council7, which has again interpreted the term "misconduct" to literally mean wrong or improper conduct, i.e., conduct in violation of a definite rule of action and it ordinarily means failure to do what is required of a person to be done. Omission to do what is required of a person to do may therefore, constitute misconduct even though a person may not have acted willfully or maliciously.
Bombay High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - M S Sonak - Full Document

M.P. State Agriculture Marketing Board ... vs Smt. Vidhyadevi Rawat on 23 March, 2018

The action against respondent No. 1 as evident, is taken not under sub-section (1) of Section 55, but under sub-section (2) of Section 55 of Adhiniyam 1972. Therefore, incumbent it was upon the Director to have established the misconduct, which means wrong or improper conduct i.e. conduct in violation of a definite rule of action. It ordinarily means failure to do what is required of a person to be done. (Please see Shaikh Mohammad Vs. G.G. In council : AIR 1954 Nagpur 337).
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1