Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (3.21 seconds)
Documents citing K.Selvamani vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 1 April, 2015

The Superintending Engineer vs Mohan Kumar

8. The appeal has been contested by learned counsel for the writ petitioner/non-appellant. Learned counsel has supported the judgment of the learned Single Judge and referred the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra), apart from the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Promod Kumar (supra) and the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this court in the case of K.Selvamani v. The State of Tamil Nadu, 2017 (1) CTC 795.
Madras High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - M N Bhandari - Full Document

The Superintending Engineer vs Mohan Kumar

8. The appeal has been contested by learned counsel for the writ petitioner/non-appellant. Learned counsel has supported the judgment of the learned Single Judge and referred the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra), apart from the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Promod Kumar (supra) and the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this court in the case of K.Selvamani v. The State of Tamil Nadu, 2017 (1) CTC 795.
Madras High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - M N Bhandari - Full Document

G.Ayyavu vs The District Collector on 18 December, 2019

This Court also had an occasion to deal with the similar issue in K.Selvamani Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2017 (1) CTC 795. The first respondent has to consider the representation made by the petitioner in line with the dictum of the judgment that have been cited supra. The petitioner is directed to make a fresh representation to the first respondent along with a copy of the representation dated 31.05.2019 and a copy of this order.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - N A Venkatesh - Full Document

… vs The District Collector on 10 November, 2021

10. On the basis of the above ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, numerous suspension orders have been interfered with in deserving cases with an exception that where suspension was a result of misconduct relating to corruption. One such case, viz., K.Selvamani Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2016) 7 MLJ 766, wherein a learned single Judge of this Court set aside the suspension order and it would be relevant to refer the following paragraph Nos.4 to 8 which are extracted hereunder:
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - V Parthiban - Full Document

M.Manibalan vs The Superintendent Of Police on 14 June, 2022

22. This judgment in fact has been followed by a learned Single https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 10 / 14 W.P.No.17366 of 2018 Judge of this Court in W.P.No.37313 of 2004 in the matter of K.Selvamani Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and Ors., where also a learned single Judge of this Court after having taken note of the view taken by the Division Bench in R.Ramesh case (cited supra) has come to a conclusion that, major penalty of removal of service for the proven of charge of desertion or unauthorized absence would be disproportionate and on that ground, the punishment after having been set aside and it was remitted the matter back to the authority i.e., employer to reconsideration for inflicting any alternative/lesser punishment.
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - R S Kumar - Full Document
1   2 Next