Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 78 (5.14 seconds)
Documents citing Tushar D. Bhatt vs State Of Gujarat & Ors on 12 February, 2009

Harivadan Parshottambhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 6 February, 2024

In Tushar D. Bhatt v. State of Gujarat and another, the appellant therein had remained unauthorisedly absent for a period of six months and further had also written threatening letters and conducted some other acts of misconduct. Eventually, the employee was visited with order of dismissal and the High Court had given the stamp of approval to the same. Commenting on the conduct of the appellant the Court stated that he was not justified in remaining unauthorisedly absent from official duty for more than six months because in the interest of discipline of any institution or organization such an approach and attitude of the employee cannot be countenanced.
Gujarat High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Hon Ble Mr. A.K.Bhardwaj vs Union Of India Through Its on 9 May, 2013

The legal position that the transfer should not be interfered with unless it is outcome of mala fide was also reiterated in Tushar D.Bhatt Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors ( 2009 (11) SC 678), Sujata Kohli Vs. H.C. of Delhi (148 (2008) DLT 17 (DB), The State of Maharashtra Vs. Omprakash Ghanshyamdas Mudiraj ( W.P.No.4859/2008), Sahebrao D.Labde & Ors Vs. Jaising Shivaji Patil & Ors (WP Nos.3473, 3474 & 3501 of 2002) Rajesh Somaal Vs. UOI & Ors ( OA No. 1388/2012), R.R.Dhavle Vs. UOI & Ors ( OA 2244/2012) and Praveen Chandra Karunakaran Solomon Vs. UOI & Ors (Jabalpur-OA 851/2012) etc.etc.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 38 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

V.R.Nagwanshi vs Union Of India on 15 September, 2025

In Tushar D. Bhatt v. State of Gujarat [(2009) 11 SCC 678 : (2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 668], the appellant therein had remained unauthorisedly absent for a period of six months and further had also written threatening letters and conducted some other acts of misconduct. Eventually, the employee was visited with order of dismissal and the High Court had given the stamp of approval to the same. Commenting on the conduct of the appellant the Court stated that he was not justified in remaining unauthorisedly absent from official duty for more than six months because in the interest of discipline of any institution or organisation such an approach and attitude of the employee cannot be countenanced."
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - M S Bhatti - Full Document

Ch. Venkat Reddy vs The State Of Telangana, on 2 July, 2018

Courts should not, ordinarily, interfere with a transfer order made in public interest and for administrative reasons. An employee, holding a transferable post, has no vested right to remain posted at one place, and is liable to be transferred from one place to the other. Transfer orders, issued by the competent authority, do not violate any of his legal rights. (Shilpi Bose v. 8 (1993) 4 SCC 357 9 1995 Supp (4) SCC 169 10 (2004) 3 SCC 172 11 (1993) 1 SCC 148 12 (2004) 11 SCC 402 7 State of Bihar13; Major General J.K. Bansal4). Transfer is an incident of service and is made in administrative exigencies, and such orders should not be interfered with except where the transfer has been made in a vindictive manner. (Public Services Tribunal Bar Assn. v. State of U.P.,14; Tushar D. Bhatt v. State of Gujarat15).
Telangana High Court Cites 127 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jupally Sreenivasa Rao vs The State Of Telangana on 2 July, 2018

Courts should not, ordinarily, interfere with a transfer order made in public interest and for administrative reasons. An employee, holding a transferable post, has no vested right to remain posted at one place, and is liable to be transferred from one place to the other. Transfer orders, issued by the competent authority, do not violate any of his legal rights. (Shilpi Bose v. 8 (1993) 4 SCC 357 9 1995 Supp (4) SCC 169 10 (2004) 3 SCC 172 11 (1993) 1 SCC 148 12 (2004) 11 SCC 402 7 State of Bihar13; Major General J.K. Bansal4). Transfer is an incident of service and is made in administrative exigencies, and such orders should not be interfered with except where the transfer has been made in a vindictive manner. (Public Services Tribunal Bar Assn. v. State of U.P.,14; Tushar D. Bhatt v. State of Gujarat15).
Telangana High Court Cites 127 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Chidurala Sudakar vs The State Of Telangana on 2 July, 2018

Courts should not, ordinarily, interfere with a transfer order made in public interest and for administrative reasons. An employee, holding a transferable post, has no vested right to remain posted at one place, and is liable to be transferred from one place to the other. Transfer orders, issued by the competent authority, do not violate any of his legal rights. (Shilpi Bose v. 8 (1993) 4 SCC 357 9 1995 Supp (4) SCC 169 10 (2004) 3 SCC 172 11 (1993) 1 SCC 148 12 (2004) 11 SCC 402 7 State of Bihar13; Major General J.K. Bansal4). Transfer is an incident of service and is made in administrative exigencies, and such orders should not be interfered with except where the transfer has been made in a vindictive manner. (Public Services Tribunal Bar Assn. v. State of U.P.,14; Tushar D. Bhatt v. State of Gujarat15).
Telangana High Court Cites 127 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

B.Suresh Kumar Reddy vs The State Of Telangana, on 2 July, 2018

Courts should not, ordinarily, interfere with a transfer order made in public interest and for administrative reasons. An employee, holding a transferable post, has no vested right to remain posted at one place, and is liable to be transferred from one place to the other. Transfer orders, issued by the competent authority, do not violate any of his legal rights. (Shilpi Bose v. 8 (1993) 4 SCC 357 9 1995 Supp (4) SCC 169 10 (2004) 3 SCC 172 11 (1993) 1 SCC 148 12 (2004) 11 SCC 402 7 State of Bihar13; Major General J.K. Bansal4). Transfer is an incident of service and is made in administrative exigencies, and such orders should not be interfered with except where the transfer has been made in a vindictive manner. (Public Services Tribunal Bar Assn. v. State of U.P.,14; Tushar D. Bhatt v. State of Gujarat15).
Telangana High Court Cites 127 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M.Purender, vs The State Of Telangana, on 2 July, 2018

Courts should not, ordinarily, interfere with a transfer order made in public interest and for administrative reasons. An employee, holding a transferable post, has no vested right to remain posted at one place, and is liable to be transferred from one place to the other. Transfer orders, issued by the competent authority, do not violate any of his legal rights. (Shilpi Bose v. 8 (1993) 4 SCC 357 9 1995 Supp (4) SCC 169 10 (2004) 3 SCC 172 11 (1993) 1 SCC 148 12 (2004) 11 SCC 402 7 State of Bihar13; Major General J.K. Bansal4). Transfer is an incident of service and is made in administrative exigencies, and such orders should not be interfered with except where the transfer has been made in a vindictive manner. (Public Services Tribunal Bar Assn. v. State of U.P.,14; Tushar D. Bhatt v. State of Gujarat15).
Telangana High Court Cites 127 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Poosa Ashok vs The State Of Telangana on 2 July, 2018

Courts should not, ordinarily, interfere with a transfer order made in public interest and for administrative reasons. An employee, holding a transferable post, has no vested right to remain posted at one place, and is liable to be transferred from one place to the other. Transfer orders, issued by the competent authority, do not violate any of his legal rights. (Shilpi Bose v. 8 (1993) 4 SCC 357 9 1995 Supp (4) SCC 169 10 (2004) 3 SCC 172 11 (1993) 1 SCC 148 12 (2004) 11 SCC 402 7 State of Bihar13; Major General J.K. Bansal4). Transfer is an incident of service and is made in administrative exigencies, and such orders should not be interfered with except where the transfer has been made in a vindictive manner. (Public Services Tribunal Bar Assn. v. State of U.P.,14; Tushar D. Bhatt v. State of Gujarat15).
Telangana High Court Cites 127 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

B.Manjula vs The State Of Telangana on 2 July, 2018

Courts should not, ordinarily, interfere with a transfer order made in public interest and for administrative reasons. An employee, holding a transferable post, has no vested right to remain posted at one place, and is liable to be transferred from one place to the other. Transfer orders, issued by the competent authority, do not violate any of his legal rights. (Shilpi Bose v. 8 (1993) 4 SCC 357 9 1995 Supp (4) SCC 169 10 (2004) 3 SCC 172 11 (1993) 1 SCC 148 12 (2004) 11 SCC 402 7 State of Bihar13; Major General J.K. Bansal4). Transfer is an incident of service and is made in administrative exigencies, and such orders should not be interfered with except where the transfer has been made in a vindictive manner. (Public Services Tribunal Bar Assn. v. State of U.P.,14; Tushar D. Bhatt v. State of Gujarat15).
Telangana High Court Cites 127 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next