Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 21 (0.63 seconds)
Documents citing Sudesh Kumari And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 13 January, 2016

Raj Kumar vs Comm. Of Police on 13 November, 2018

11. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the case of Sudesh Kumar Vs. State of Haryana & Others reported in 2005 (11) SCC 525 wherein the services of the appellant were dismissed by resorting to provisions of Article 311 (2)(b) of the Constitution dispensing with the enquiry on the ground that it was not practicable to hold the enquiry as complainant was a foreigner, who was likely to leave the country and that he had been threatened by the appellant yet the order of dismissal was set aside.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Constable 2199 (Pno 162806090) Sandeep ... vs State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home ... on 2 March, 2021

18. On the parameter of the aforesaid provisions and law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court, I have examine the instant case. In the present case, it is accepted position that first information report was lodged as Case Crime No.1132 of 2018, under Section 302 IPC and second first information report was as Case Crime No.1140 of 2018, under Section 302 IPC. Later on, second FIR was clubbed with Case Crime No.1132 of 2018. The learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Lucknow had framed charges under Sections 323 and 302 IPC read with Section 114 IPC against the petitioner, vide order dated 22.03.2019. The authority concerned in his wisdom has proceeded to pass order of dismissal on account of the fact that it is not reasonably practicable to hold inquiry.
Allahabad High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - C D Singh - Full Document

Balkar Singh vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 29 September, 2016

The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Sudesh Kumar Vs. State of Haryana & others reported as 2005 (11) SCC 525 had held that an inquiry under Article 311 sub clause (2) of the Constitution of India is a rule and dispensing with the inquiry is an exception. It was also held that the authority dispensing with the inquiry under Article 311 sub clause (2) (b) of the Constitution of India must satisfy for reasons to be recorded that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry. It is by now well settled in a catena of judgments that the subjective satisfaction of the competent authority for dispensing with a regular departmental inquiry must be based on cogent material and a regular inquiry cannot be dispensed with solely on the ipse dixit of the concerned authority. Subjective satisfaction for dispensing with the inquiry not supported by any material cannot be held to be justified. An order of dismissal, where the same is found based on material available before the punishing authority in the form of a preliminary inquiry, information etc. which could be made the basis for forming an opinion that it was reasonably impracticable to hold a regular departmental inquiry would certainly not call for any interference but in a situation where no such material was available as is the case in the present situation, the exercise of power under clause (b) of the second proviso to 10 of 14 ::: Downloaded on - 23-10-2016 05:33:27 ::: CWP No.17879 of 2014 11 Article 311 sub clause (2) would have to be held to be arbitrary and illegal.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 2 - D Chaudhary - Full Document

Hukmi vs State Of Haryana Etc on 20 January, 2025

18. The reason which has been portrayed in the above extracted paragraph, rather for the Division Bench taking the above view, arose from its concluding, that in the legislature employing the said coinages in the above extracted provision, is therebys thus deemed not to waste its words or to say anything in vain and a construction which attributes redundancy to the Legislature, except for compelling reasons rather will not be accepted. Therefore, to avoid the assigning of redundancy to the employment of the statutory coinage (supra), in the provisions cast under Section 7 of the Act of 1961, thus the Division Bench of this Court concluded, that the expanse of the said statutory coinages, spreads even to a situation, whereby the respondent in the eviction petition, who despite not rearing, thus within the domain of the proviso, as occurs thereins, hence any question of title, whereby he/she resists the assertion of title, as made to the disputed lands by the petitioner/Gram Panchayat in the eviction petition, rather becoming empowered to avail the revisional remedies (supra). The judgment (supra) also became concurred by a verdict rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in case titled as Sudesh Kumar and others versus State of Haryana and others, reported in 2019(4) PLR 204.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - S Thakur - Full Document

Manohar Lal vs Commissioner Of Police on 12 March, 2026

21) In view of the analysis of the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Tulsiram Patel (Supra), we have examined the impugned judgement passed by the High Court wherein in paragraph 19, while referring to the judgment of Sudesh Kumar vs. State of Haryana and Ors. (2005) 11 SCC 525 in respect of the principle of audi alteram partem and also referring to paragraph 101 of Tulsiram Patel (Supra), it has been observed by the High Court that the appellate authority had heard the appellant before affirming the decision of the disciplinary authority, it appears that the judgment of Sudesh Kumar (Supra) has not been appreciated in its true spirit by the High Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - J K Maheshwari - Full Document
1   2 3 Next