Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 79 (0.76 seconds)
Documents citing Babu Lal vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 16 January, 1991

Ajaybir Singh vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 17 August, 2019

[11] In view of the position as noted above, the writ petition is allowed in the same terms as in CWP No.3392 of 2017 titled as Babu Lal vs State of Haryana and Others and CWP No.3441 of 2017 titled as Parveen Malik vs State of Haryana and others. The respondents shall work out the amount chargeable in accordance with Rule 5.23 Part I, Vol. I of the Punjab Civil Services Rules (as applicable to the State of Haryana) and make adjustment of the amount already recovered against the total amount found due and payable by the petitioner. No order as to costs.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - B S Walia - Full Document

Umesh Anirudha Mahajan vs State Of Mah & 2 Others on 20 March, 2020

In this regard, he relied on the decision of Supreme Court in cases of Babu Lal Vs. State of Haryana, 1991 (2) SCC 335 and Anoop Jaiswal Vs. Government of India, 1984 AIR (SC) 636 . In these case, it is ruled that where the form of the order is merely a camouflage for an order of dismissal for misconduct, it is always open to the Court to go behind the form and ascertain the true character of the order. If the Court holds that the order though in the form is merely determination of employment is in reality a cloak for an order of ::: Uploaded on - 20/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2020 12:07:44 ::: Judgment 7 228wp5740.06.odt punishment, the Court would not be debarred merely because of the form of the order.
Bombay High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - V G Joshi - Full Document

Sunil Vasantrao Paunikar vs M/O Finance on 7 July, 2023

5.4 It has been submitted that before issuing the said impugned reversion order, no prior notice on reversion to downgrade/reduce the applicant by three grades from the present post of ITI was issued to him so as to give him reasonable opportunity of being heard to defend/represent against such inaction of reversion. 28 OA Nos.2103, 2104, 2112, 2113, 2114, 2115, 2116, 2117, 2145 of 2020; 2067, 2069, 2078, 2070, 2088, 729 of 2021; 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 153, 163, 197, 198, 199 of 2022 5.5 It is submitted that the impugned orders ibid being erroneous, illegal, not in accordance with the law, punitive in nature, violative of Article 14, 16, 311(2) of the Constitution of India, against the principles of service jurisprudence as also against the guidelines given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment dated 11.02.1986 in the case of Narender Chadha Vs. Union of India, 1986 AIR (SC) 638 which has been followed in the later judgment dated 11.12.1987 in the case of Karan Singh Vs. Union of India as reported in 1988 (1) JT 1 and in subsequent judgment dated 16.01.1991 in the case of Babu Lal Vs. State of Haryana as reported in 1991 (AIR) SC 1310 against issue of such penal orders.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dr. Nitin Kumar Son Of Shri Rajpal And Dr. ... vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi Through Its ... on 7 December, 2007

At this point, he also adverted to a decision, namely, Babu Lal v. State of Haryana and Ors. . It was a case where an employee continuing on ad hoc basis without break for more than two years stood removed. He had been served with an order of termination, alleging that there was a criminal case to which he was a party although it had ended in acquittal at a later stage. The order was set aside, citing the principle that if a simple termination is found to be a camouflage for punitive action, the order requires to be set aside.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 21 - Cited by 27 - Full Document

P.Surya Rao vs Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd on 29 April, 2004

Reliance was also placed upon "AIR 1997 SC 180 2 (RANCHHODJI CHATURJI THAKORE versus SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER, GUJARAT ELECTRICITY BOAD, HIMMATNAGAR (GUJARAT) AND ANOTHER); 1999(5) SCC 7 62 (BANK OF INDIA AND ANOTHER versus DEGALA SURYANARAYANA); 1991(2) SCC 335 (BABU LAL versus STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS); 1994(1) SCC 541 (MANAGEMENT OF RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, NEW DELHI versus BHOPAL SINGH PANCHAL); 1997(6) SCC 282 (BIR SINGH CHAUHAN versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER) and 2002(8) SCC 385.
Madras High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - F M Kalifulla - Full Document

Nisakar Chattopadhyay vs State Of West Bengal And Others on 15 June, 2016

The petitioner has also placed a judgment reported at (1991) 2 SCC 335 (Babu Lal v. State of Haryana). Paragraph 7 of the report has been relied upon. However, it does not appear that anything in such report is of any relevance in the present context. The petitioner in that case was appointed by a public body on a temporary basis. A criminal charge, unconnected with the employee's usual line of duty, was brought against the employee and, as a consequence, his temporary engagement was suspended. The criminal court acquitted the accused on the ground that the accused was not present at the place of occurrence. It was further observed that the persecution "could not point out even a single factor by which the participation of this accused can be said to have been proved ..." Notwithstanding such order, the engagement of the concerned temporary employee was discontinued which resulted in the filing of a suit and appeals being carried from the orders passed in the suit. Clearly, on facts, the present petition or the position of the present petitioner cannot be equated with that of the petitioner in the reported case.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - S Banerjee - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next