Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.44 seconds)
Documents citing Mithilesh Kumar & Ors vs The State Of Bihar on 30 October, 2018

Dr. Janardan Prasad Sukumar vs The State Of Bihar on 20 April, 2024

Reference in this connection has been made to a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Laxmi Devi Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. Sri Nand Kishore Singh, reported in AIR 1957 SC 7, as also on a judgment rendered by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Mithilesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar, reported in 2021 (4) PLJR 428, as also the one rendered by this Court in the case of Rajendra Prasad Shah vs. the State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 2018 (3) PLJR 939.
Patna High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - M K Shah - Full Document

Sudha Devi And Ors vs Neeraj Kumar And Ors on 21 August, 2025

28. Mr. Trivedi further submitted that if the fact comes to the notice of this Court, this Court is empowered to declare these decisions per incurium. The learned senior counsel referred to the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Dr. Mithilesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar & Anr., reported in 1999(2)PLJR 259, wherein the learned Single Judge considering a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Kameshwar Pd. vs. State of Bihar in CWJC No. 4096/1995 concluded that the matter was not considered by the Division Bench in its proper perspective and having regard to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the finding in the judgment of Kameshwar (supra) was recorded per incurium and was not binding precedent. The learned Single Judge further held that in all probabilities, the Division Bench would have followed the Supreme Court's judgments if its attention was drawn to these decisions. Thus, Mr. Trivedi submitted that the aforesaid judgments of three Benches of this Court will not have any binding effect being per incurium for not considering the law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Patna High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - A K Jha - Full Document

Most. Sudha Devi vs Ravi Pratap Singh on 21 August, 2025

28. Mr. Trivedi further submitted that if the fact comes to the notice of this Court, this Court is empowered to declare these decisions per incurium. The learned senior counsel referred to the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Dr. Mithilesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar & Anr., reported in 1999(2)PLJR 259, wherein the learned Single Judge considering a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Kameshwar Pd. vs. State of Bihar in CWJC No. 4096/1995 concluded that the matter was not considered by the Division Bench in its proper perspective and having regard to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the finding in the judgment of Kameshwar (supra) was recorded per incurium and was not binding precedent. The learned Single Judge further held that in all probabilities, the Division Bench would have followed the Supreme Court's judgments if its attention was drawn to these decisions. Thus, Mr. Trivedi submitted that the aforesaid judgments of three Benches of this Court will not have any binding effect being per incurium for not considering the law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Patna High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - A K Jha - Full Document

Birendra Kumar vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 25 October, 2021

; 21.04.2014 was the date fixed for the departmental enquiry when the petitioner had submitted a request for adjournment on the ground of his illness. In hot haste, on Patna High Court CWJC No.5376 of 2017 dt.25-10-2021 7/13 21.04.2014 itself, the enquiring authority submitted his perfunctory report without any evidence, holding all the charges against the petitioner to have been proved. He thirdly submits that the petitioner had given a detailed representation against the report of the enquiring authority before the disciplinary authority explaining as to why the said report should not be accepted and the charges should be held 'not proved'. The disciplinary authority, however, based on a perfunctory enquiry report, passed the impugned order dated 30.09.2014 imposing punishment of dismissal from service without any application of mind inasmuch as the said order does not at all disclose any application of mind over the petitioner's representation against the report of the enquiring authority. He has further argued that the petitioner's appeal was also rejected by the appellate authority by an order dated 27.12.2017 on erroneous consideration that the petitioner could not mention any fact in his memo of appeal, which was not considered during the departmental enquiry and the grounds taken in the appeal were the same as taken in his written statement of defence. He has placed reliance on Supreme Court's decision in case of Roop Singh Negi vs. Punjab National Bank and Others, reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570, coordinate Bench decision in case of Vijendra Prasad vs. The State of Bihar and Others, reported in Patna High Court CWJC No.5376 of 2017 dt.25-10-2021 8/13 2019(4) PLJR 1046 and decision rendered on 31.08.2021 in C.W.J.C. No. 7631 of 2016 (Mithilesh Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar and Others) in support of his argument that the impugned order imposing punishment of dismissal from service is illegal, arbitrary and in complete violation of principles of natural justice.
Patna High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - C S Singh - Full Document
1