Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.49 seconds)
Documents citing Sudhir Ranjan Senapati vs Union Of India Through on 6 August, 2010

Manjit Singh Bali vs Department Of Posts on 15 November, 2018

In Sudhir Ranjan, Justice Rajiv Shakdher distinguished from the facts of Surinder Pal Singh case and held "that ratio of that judgment would not apply to the facts obtaining in the present (Sudhir Ranjan) case". Justice Shakdhar referred to the apex court's judgment in (2003) 5 SCC 568 paragraph 23 that 'a little difference in facts or additional facts may lead to a different conclusion".
Central Information Commission Cites 37 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

B.S.Nehra S/O Shri S.S.Nehra vs Union Of India Through The Secretary on 30 October, 2013

No. 6348 of 2011), decided on 05.09.2013] and has been consistently followed in Union of India & Others v. S.K. Srivastava (Writ Petition (Civil) no.13223/2009) and Sudhir Ranjan Senapati v. Union of India & Others (OA no.942/2009 and several other cases) where non-approval of the charge sheet by the competent authority has been considered a fatal flaw in the disciplinary proceedings.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mr.G Brahmaiah vs Department Of Telecommunications on 3 June, 2013

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 25/04/2013: The following were present Appellant: Mr. G. Brahmaiah through VC (M: 09448010320) Respondent: Dr. Brajesh Singh CPIO & other (M: 9013134046) The CPIO has given his written submissions dated 17/04/2013 stating that they have consulted the CBI in the matter who have informed that the agency is exempt from the purview of the RTI Act vide Government of India notification F.No.1/3/2011-IR, dated 09/04/2011 and hence the information which, inter-alia, contains inputs from the CBI, is exempt from disclosure. The appellant pleaded that it is very clear from the order dated 05/03/2013 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi (Sudhir Ranjan Senapathi vs UOI) that the respondents cannot withhold information relating to the sanction accorded by the department for allowing his prosecution which is the only information he seeks.
Central Information Commission Cites 3 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1