Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 140 (0.45 seconds)
Documents citing Prem Behari Lal Mathur vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 9 January, 2004

Subhash Singh vs State Of Raj. & Ors on 3 September, 2012

"The petitioner being facing a trial for criminal offence was placed under suspension. The Government of Rajasthan by its circular dated 10.8.2001 issued guidelines to its competent officers to the effect that no public servant who is facing criminal trial be reinstated by revoking suspension till he is acquitted from the charges levelled against him. The circular referred above relates to the government servants who are facing criminal trial pertaining to the charges of moral turpitudes. It is true that the petitioner is also facing charges of serious nature involving moral turpitude but in present case it is required to be seen as to whether retention of petitioner under suspension is really warranted in the existing circumstances.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 18 - Cited by 2 - G Mathur - Full Document

Sanwar Chand Chandel vs State & Ors on 6 January, 2009

It is not in dispute that the petitioner was placed under suspension on 27.02.1999 and since then he is facing the same. No denial of the fact that a decision was taken by the State Government to revoke the suspension of the petitioner is made on behalf of the respondents. This Court in the case of Prem Prakash Mathur vs. State of Rajasthan and others reported in 2006(1) CDR 291 (Raj.), while examining the issue relating to prolonged suspension held as follows:
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - G Mathur - Full Document

Mahendra Raj Bhandari vs State Of Raj. & Ors on 23 December, 2010

In the case of Prem Prakash Mathur Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: 2005 (9) RDD 3962 (Raj.), the petitioner concerned was facing suspension since the month of November 1992 and the respondents failed to show any reasonable cause for prolonged suspension and there was no allegation that he 4 had in any way delayed the trial of the criminal case. In the circumstances, this Court observed and held,-
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - D Maheshwari - Full Document

Madan Lal vs State Of Raj. & Ors on 13 December, 2012

"The petitioner being facing a trial for criminal offence was placed under suspension. The Government of Rajasthan by its circular dated 10.8.2001 issued guidelines to its competent officers to the effect that no public servant who is facing criminal trial be reinstated by revoking suspension till he is acquitted from the charges levelled against him. The circular referred above relates to the government servants who are facing criminal trial pertaining to the charges of moral turpitudes. It is true that the petitioner is also facing charges of serious nature involving moral turpitude but in present case it is required to be seen as to whether retention of petitioner under suspension is really warranted in the existing circumstances.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - G Mathur - Full Document

Prakash Dharu vs State Of Raj. & Ors on 17 January, 2014

True it is, suspension of a person who is found involved in corruption cases is highly desirable, but at the same time the competent authority is required to review the need of such suspension, as that cannot remain in currency for an indefinite period. The prolong suspension too is having its adverse effects to service as well as for the employee. This Court in Prem Prakash Mathur v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., reported in 2005(9) RDD 3962 (Raj), while considering the issue in relation to prolong suspension held as under:-
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 3 - Cited by 5 - G Mathur - Full Document

Mahendra Kumar Sharma vs State Of Raj And Ors on 15 January, 2010

Counsel has further placed reliance on a judgment of this Court reported in Prem Prakash Mathur Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors (2005(9) RDD 3962 (Raj.) & Vishnu Kr. Gupta Vs. State (2009 WLC (UC) 701). Counsel submits that the Circular issued by the State Government dt. 10/08/2001 will not supersede the statutory requirement which is to be complied with by the authority under Rule 13(5) of the Rules.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - A Rastogi - Full Document

Nevand Ram vs State Of Raj & Ors on 3 February, 2010

Counsel has further placed reliance on a judgment of this Court reported in Prem Prakash Mathur Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors (2005(9) RDD 3962 (Raj.) & Vishnu Kr. Gupta Vs. State (2009 WLC (UC) 701). Counsel submits that the Circular issued by the State Government dt. 10/08/2001 will not supersede the statutory requirement which is to be complied with by the authority under Rule 13(5) of the Rules.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - A Rastogi - Full Document

Chakrapani Gautam vs State Of Raj And Ors on 4 March, 2010

Counsel has further placed reliance on a judgment of this Court reported in Prem Prakash Mathur Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors (2005(9) RDD 3962 (Raj.) & Vishnu Kr. Gupta Vs. State (2009 WLC (UC) 701). Counsel submits that the Circular issued by the State Government dt. 10/08/2001 will not supersede the statutory requirement which is to be complied with by the authority under Rule 13(5) of the Rules.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - A Rastogi - Full Document

Sumant Kumar Koli vs State Of Raj & Ors on 20 April, 2010

Counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Prem Prakash Mathur Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : 2005(9) RDD (Raj.) 3962 decided on 20/9/2005 and in 2009 WLC UC (Raj.) 701. Counsel further submits that the Circular issued by the State Government dated 10/8/2001 will not supersede the statutory requirement to be complied with by the authority under Rule 13 (5) of the Rules of 1958.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - M Rafiq - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next