Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 289 (0.87 seconds)
Documents citing Divl. Forest Officer, Kothagudem & Ors vs Madhusudhan Rao on 8 February, 2008

R.Pattabhi (Died) vs The Tamil Nadu Minerals Limited on 25 August, 2010

35. The next contention of the learned counsel for Appellants is that Appellate Authority is expected to apply its mind to the findings and while confirming the order, the Appellate Authority must also furnish reasons. Submitting that in the instant case, the order of Appellate Authority is laconic, the learned counsel for Appellants placed reliance upon (2008) 3 SCC 469 [Divisional Forest Officer, Kothagudem and others v. Madhusudhan Rao] wherein the Supreme Court held as under:-
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 2 - R Banumathi - Full Document

P.N. Saluja vs State Bank Of India on 13 January, 2011

10. Similarly, in "Divisional Forest Officer, Kothagudem and Others Vs. Madhusudhan Rao", (2008) 3 Supreme Court Cases 469 the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that the Appellate Authority is required to give at least some reasons for rejecting an appeal preferred by a public servant who had been guilty in departmental enquiry. This is what the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed in para no. 20 of the judgment:-
Delhi High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - P K Bhasin - Full Document

R.Murugesan vs The Executive Committee on 18 November, 2019

8. Following the ratio laid down in the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned order dated 18.12.2002 is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the same is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the 1st respondent for fresh consideration. The 1st respondent is directed to decide the matter afresh on merits and in accordance with law, by passing a detailed order.
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - M Duraiswamy - Full Document

M.Muthuraj vs The State Rep. By The on 20 November, 2012

19. Considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Hon'ble Court in the decisions discussed above any by applying those decisions to the facts and circumstances of the case, I allow the writ petition and set aside the order of the respondents 1 to 4 and consequently, remit the matter back to the fourth respondent to pass a fresh order on merits and in accordance with law, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case in detail, by independent application of his mind. The said exercise shall be done by the fourth respondent within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 1 - K R Baabu - Full Document

M K Srivastava vs General Manager, N E Rly on 12 July, 2018

9. At the time of oral submissions on 06.07.2018, learned counsel for the applicant reiterated the averments in the OA and the Rejoinder that no opportunity of hearing was given to the applicant before passing the order to recover the amount in question from the salary of the applicant and that no proceeding under the provisions of the DAR, 1968 was initiated against the applicant before passing the order of recovery of the loss from the salary. Learned counsel for the applicant also submitted written arguments/synopsis at the time of hearing on 6.7.2018 enclosing the copy of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Divisional Forest Officer, Kothagudem and others vs. Madhusudhan Rao reported in (2008) 3 SCC 469 in support of his contentions in this OA. It was submitted that in the cited case, the impugned order enhancing the punishment on the respondents was held to be illegal since it was passed by the appellate authority without considering the grounds raised by the respondents and no give reasons for the decision.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next