Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 510 (1.59 seconds)
Documents citing Bachhittar Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 7 March, 1962

Life Insurance Corpn.Of India vs Presiding Officer,Labour Court on 28 October, 2009

20. We must also deal with the objection raised by learned counsel for respondent no.2 that the intra-departmental appeal provided under the 29 Regulations is illusory. The contention is stated only to be rejected, above all on the authority of the Supreme Court in the case of Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab (supra). Secondly the orders of the authorities under the Regulations are subject to the jurisdiction of this Court and that of the Supreme Court. All the employees of the Bihar Government are subject to identical conditions.
Patna High Court Cites 39 - Cited by 1 - S K Katriar - Full Document

Samir Chharchholia vs Govt. Of Nctd on 28 May, 2025

In the case of Bachhittar Singh v. The State of Punjab, [1962] Suppl. 3 SCR 713 a Constitution Bench of this Court had to consider the effect of an order passed by a Minister on a file. which order was not communicated. This Court, relying upon Article 166(1) of the Constitution, held that the order of the Revenue Minister, PEPSU could not amount to an order by the State Government unless it was expressed in the name of Rajpramukh as required by the said Article and was then communicated to the party concerned. This is how this Court dealt with the effect of the noting by a Minister on the file:
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Badal Chandra Bhunia vs The State Of West Bengal &Ors on 7 September, 2022

26. The decision of the Supreme court in the case of Bachhittar Singh vs. The State of Punjab reported in AIR (1963) SC 395 is an authority for the proposition that an order of the Secretary of the State does not take effect unless the same is communicated to the petitioner concerned. The observations in connection with Article 166 must be deemed as general and obiter, in the facts of the Case. The subject matter of the case was disciplinary proceedings against a government servant under Article 311 of the Constitution of India. The said decision therefore, cannot come to the aid of the Petitioner.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 26 - Cited by 5 - R Mantha - Full Document

Lt.Col.(Retd)K.G.Ramachandran vs State Of Kerala on 2 June, 2009

5. The Apex Court held that before something amounts to an order of the State Government two things are necessary, (i) the order has to be expressed in the name of the Governor as required by clause (1) of Article 166 of the Constitution and (ii) it has to be communicated to the person who would be affected by that order. It was held until such an order is drawn up by the State Government, the notes made by the Hon'ble Minister on the file cannot be said to be an order of the State Government. The Apex Court also noticed that it is possible that after expressing one opinion about a particular matter at a particular stage, a Minister of the Council of Ministers may later express quite a different opinion, one which may be completely opposed to the earlier opinion and therefore to make the opinion amount to a decision of the Government it must be a final decision communicated to the person concerned. Tested in the light of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Bachhittar Singh, V. State of Punjab & another (supra), I am pursuaded to agree with the learned Additional Advocate General that Ext.P6 cannot said to be an order of the State Government removing the petitioner from office. W.P(C) No. 12551of 2009 -L 6 The respondents have in paragraph 5 of the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No. 6381 of 2009 virtually conceded this position.
Kerala High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - P N Ravindran - Full Document

Harbans Lal vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 31 August, 2022

The case of the petitioner, in the present case, is that the entire acquisition proceedings with respect to land in question have been set aside as per the judgment passed in CWP-869-1981 titled as Parkash Singh son of Shri Bachhittar Singh vs. The State of Punjab and others, decided on 22.02.1983 (Annexure P-4). However, the acquisition proceedings attained finality as it is evident that the possession was delivered to the Estate Officer, Urban Estate vide rapat No. 731 dated 11.07.1978 as admitted by respondents No. 1 and 2 in the reply by way of affidavit dated 02.08.2016 and also by respondent No. 3 in his separate written statement dated 21.07.2016. The petitioner had already received compensation vide cheque No. 695448 dated 10.08.1978. Further, the award was passed on 22.03.1978 and the present writ petition has been filed challenging the acquisition proceedings on 25.01.2016 i.e. after considerable delay of more than 38 years.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - R Bahri - Full Document

The State Of Bihar vs Braj Bhushan Sharma on 12 December, 2022

In Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab [AIR 1963 SC 395 : 1962 Supp (3) SCR 713] another Constitution Bench held that the departmental proceedings taken against the Government servant are not divisible into two compartments. There is just one continuous proceeding though there are two stages in it. The first is coming to a conclusion on the evidence as to whether the charges raised against the Government servant have been established or not and the second is reached only if it is found that they are established. That stage deals with the action to be taken against the Government servant concerned. Therefore, from the stage of service of the charge-sheet till the imposition of punishment was considered to be a continuous whole process consisting of Patna High Court L.P.A No.1157 of 2019 dt.12-12-2022 22/25 the proof of the charge and imposition of the punishment on the proved charge.
Patna High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - P B Bajanthri - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next