Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (1.37 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Tripura vs Sitesh Chandra Das on 22 May, 2001

State Of Punjab And Anr vs Devans Modern Brewaries Ltd. And Anr on 20 November, 2003

360. Judicial discipline envisages that a coordinate bench follow the decision of earlier coordinate bench. If a coordinate bench does not agree with the principles of law enunciated by another bench, the matter may be referred only to a larger bench. (See Pradip Chandra Parija v. Pramod Chandra Patnaik, followed in State of Tripura v. Roop Chand Das and Ors., But no decision can be arrived at contrary to or inconsistent with the law laid down by the coordinate bench.
Supreme Court of India Cites 194 - Cited by 555 - A R Lakshmanan - Full Document

N. Satheesh Kumar vs The Director on 30 July, 2010

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that for the unauthorised absence, even assuming if it is proved, the Supreme Court in the decisions reported in (2007) 15 SCC 759 (State of Tripura v. Naresh Chandra Das); (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 135 (A.P.SRTC v. Surender); (2009) 15 SCC 620 (Coal India Ltd v. Mukul Kumar Choudhuri) held that for unauthorised absence dismissing a person is too harsh. The said plea viz., disproportionate punishment was taken as a ground by the petitioner before the appellate authority.
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - N N Vasanthakumar - Full Document

The State Of Bihar & Ors vs Ravindra Kumar Sinha on 22 June, 2011

Mr. Rajiv Kumar Verma has relied upon the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of "State of Tripura and Others Vs. Naresh Chandra Das [(2007) 15 Supreme Court Cases 759]". He has submitted that in similar circumstances the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the order of the High Court setting aside the order of removal from service of the delinquent. We may note here, though the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the order of the High Court directing reinstatement of the delinquent police constable in service, the Court did observe, "having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, even though there is some force in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant, we are not inclined to interfere Patna High Court LPA No.903 of 2011 (3) dt.22-06-2011 6 under Article 136 of the Constitution." It is evident that this judgment does hold that the absence from duty continuously for five years does constitute a gross act of indiscipline or misconduct.
Patna High Court - Orders Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1