Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.78 seconds)
Documents citing Sada Nand Misra vs State Of U.P. And Another on 23 September, 1999

Ram Rakshapal Singh vs Superintendent Of Police, Railways And ... on 23 August, 2002

In Smt. Akhtari Bi v. State of Madhya Pradesh (supra), the Supreme Court was not deciding the effect of the orders passed under Section 389(1), Cr. P.C. and that in Sada Nand Misra v. State of U. P. (supra), the Court was considering the question whether conviction alone is a ground to punish a Government employee and held that conviction by itself cannot be the basis for punishment and that the appointing authority must consider the effect of conviction and the fact whether further retention in public service is desirable. In the present case, the competent authority after going into the facts and findings of the Court leading to the conviction has considered the effect of conviction and sentence upon continuing the petitioner- in service and held the dismissal cannot be held to be bad in law.
Allahabad High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - S Ambwani - Full Document

Sh. Sh. Santosh Kumar vs M/S. Delhi Jal Board (Djb) on 25 August, 2017

9. Ld.   ARW   argued   that   order   dated   02.08.2013   vide which   claimant   was   removed   from   service,   is   bad   because   the management did not consider the reply of the claimant that he had been released on bail by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad by suspending the sentence and by staying the sentence of fine.   He relied upon Sada Nand Misra Vs. State of U.P. and another Writ Petition No.4985(S/S) of 1994  decided by Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad   on   23.09.1999   to   argue   that   it   was   necessary   for   the management to write in the impugned order that due to conduct of LIR No.515/17 9/15 the   claimant   which   had   led   to   his   conviction   that   his   further retention   in   public   service   was   undesirable.     He   submitted   that perusal of the removal order shows that it was passed only upon the conviction   of   claimant   and   not   upon   his   misconduct.    The   third argument of ld. ARW is that the claimant has already been released on   bail   by   the   High   Court   because   his   appeal   is   likely   to   be succeeded and hence, the removal order be reversed.
Delhi District Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Fajid Ali vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Gram ... on 16 April, 2024

6. Further submissions were made that Division Bench of this Court, while suspending the sentence of the appellant, has come to the conclusion that the injuries to the deceased could not have been caused by the appellant, which fact is also required to be taken into consideration. It was prayed that the appeal be allowed, judgment impugned be set aside and the writ petition be allowed. Reliance was placed on Sada Nand Mishra Vs. State of U.P. : 1993 (11) LCD 70.
Allahabad High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Chandra Kumar vs Union Of India on 30 October, 2017

yary Auihonty Which was Sef ASIGE HS order passed by the Disciplin erecta 1 ta ' reading to the conduct ot ine 9989/08 did not consider the circurmsiances applicant in that O.A. which is not the case here. Hence, we are of ie yiew that the facts and clroumstances in the present O.A. are different from the O.A. No. 2089 of 2008, hence the ratio of the judg gemem ASE No, 2089 of 2008 yall not be applicable | in this case in the case of Sada Nand Mishra vs. State of UP (supra). Hor bie
Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Pradeep Kumar Shukla vs State Of U.P. Thru.Secy. Home Deptt. And ... on 27 February, 2025

"14. Thus, in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Tulsiram Patel (supra), T.R. Chellapan (supra) and Shankar Das (supra), and two Division Bench judgments of this court in Shyam Narain Shukla (supra) and Sadanand Mishra (supra), it can safely be concluded that while removing the petitioner from service, the respondents were bound to consider the conduct of the petitioner, which has led to his conviction in the session trial. This was the condition precedent for the competent authority to acquire jurisdiction to impose punishment of removal from service. However, the impugned order is unfortunately silent and does not show consideration of conduct of the petitioner which has led to his conviction in the S.T. No.178 of 2005. It was necessary for the respondents, while passing the impugned order, to consider the conduct of the petitioner leading to his conviction and then to decide what punishment is to be inflicted upon him. This has not been done by the respondent No.2 while removing the petitioner from service. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed."
Allahabad High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - A Mathur - Full Document

Ram Lakhan Alias Lakhan Meena vs M/O Railways on 12 February, 2020

5. Accordingly, the present Original Application is disposed of with the observations that if such a representation is filed by the applicant within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, the same shall be considered by the respondents and a reasoned and speaking order shall be passed within a period of two months thereafter while keeping in view the order dated 10.05.2016 passed by the Allahabad Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Jai Chandra (supra) and the judgment dated 23rd September, 1999 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Sada Nand Misra (supra).
Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1