Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.33 seconds)
Documents citing State Of U.P. And Ors. vs Ajit Singh And Anr. on 3 April, 1998

The State Bank Of India vs K.V.Balasubramanian on 29 July, 2011

"5. We have already noticed above that when the order was passed on 27-11-1970 revoking the order of dismissal it was specifically mentioned that the respondent shall continue to be under suspension and this was reaffirmed in the order dated 31-10-1975 when he was reinstated in service stating that the order of reinstatement was being passed without affecting his case and that in that case separate order would be passed regarding imposition of punishment. In our view the High Court fell in error when it said that the orders of revocation and reinstatement did not contain decisions of the appointing authority to hold further inquiry either on the same allegations or some other additional charges. There is a clear direction that inquiry would continue on the allegations on which the respondent was dismissed from service and the dismissal order has subsequently been set aside on any of the grounds mentioned in the above Rule. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order of the High Court insofar as it holds that since there was no decision to hold further inquiry the respondent would be entitled to full salary for the period from 14-9-1962 to 31-10-1975.
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - M Venugopal - Full Document

O.P. Mishra vs State on 23 October, 2002

13. On consideration of the totality of facts and circumstances of this case, we have no hesitation in coming to the definite conclusion that the petitioner is not guilty of non-compliance of the orders passed by the learned C.M.M. No dereliction of duty can be attributed to the petitioner. The petitioner cannot produce the under-trial Ajit Singh until by the orders of the concerned Court in Haryana he is sent back to Tihar Jail. Consequently, the order dated 163.2002 passed by C.M.M., Delhi whereby the arrest warrants have been issued against the petitioner for non-production of under-trial Ajit Singh in case tittled as "State v. Ajit Singh" is set aside.
Delhi High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - D Bhandari - Full Document

Onkar Bharadwaj vs State Of U.P. And Another on 12 April, 2022

It is further contended by counsel is that as mentioned above that the co-accused Ajit is facing the S.T. No. 1057 of 2019 (State of U.P. Vs. Ajit) in which two witnesses namely Ms. A was recorded as a PW-1 where Sri Pappu @ Raj Kumar was recorded as a PW-2 and soon thereafter an application under section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved on 20.12.2019 which was eventually allowed by passing the impugned order.
Allahabad High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 1 - R Chaturvedi - Full Document

Prabhat Kumar Chakravarty vs Union Of India & Ors on 6 April, 2009

It is also a settled legal proposition of law that judicial review assailing charge sheet of a departmental proceeding is permissible only on certain limited grounds namely malafide and/or jurisdictional point but judicial review cannot be a tool to prejudge a issue before adjudication of the same by the Disciplinary Authority. Reliance is placed to the judgement passed in the case State of U.P Vs. Ajit Singh reported in 1997 (11) SC 368, Union of India & Ors. Vs. Upendra 20 Singh reported in 1994(3) SCC 357 wherein in paragraph 6, the Apex Court opined to this effect, which read such:-
Calcutta High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 1 - P K Ray - Full Document

Bharti vs State Of U.P. And Another on 31 May, 2022

It is further contended by counsel is that as mentioned above that the co-accused Ajit is facing the S.T. No. 1057 of 2019 (State of U.P. Vs. Ajit) in which two witnesses namely Ms. A was recorded as a PW-1 where Sri Pappu @ Raj Kumar was recorded as a PW-2 and soon thereafter an application under section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved on 20.12.2019 which was eventually allowed by passing the impugned order.
Allahabad High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - G Chowdhary - Full Document

Ajay Singh vs Delhi Police Public School And Ors. on 4 January, 2005

7. Mr.Rakesh Khanna, counsel for the respondent, opposing the submissions of Mr.Sethi submitted that a restricted meaning to the expression "further inquiry' was not warranted. Mr.Khanna submitted that in view of the specific provision of Sub-Rule (4), since a further inquiry had been ordered, the order of suspension would relate back to the date of original dismissal. He submitted that an inquiry report has been received in a sealed cover, which is to be considered by the Disciplinary Authority. Mr.Khanna submitted that sub-Rule (4) of Rule 115 has to be interpreted in a manner, which permits a fresh inquiry or an inquiry when none has been held. He submitted that there was no reason to give a restricted meaning to the expression "further inquiry", where existence of an earlier inquiry is held to be sine qua non for its application. By way of illustration, he submitted that if an employee is arrested and not granted bail for alleged offences and his services are terminated without inquiry under the Rules but is either acquitted subsequently in criminal trial or in appeal and seeks reinstatement, in such case, the use of expression 'further inquiry" would be an appropriate one, even though an inquiry may or may not have been held. He seeks to draw support from State of U.P. And Ors. v. Ajit Singh and Anr. .
Delhi High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 5 - M Sarin - Full Document

Smt. Subhas Kalia vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 15 November, 2017

Learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand submits that promotion channel was to the post of Accountant/ Establishment Clerk and if petitioner was not having necessary qualification for the post of Accountant, then the respondent should have promoted him as Establishment Clerk. He also submitted that in the light of the law laid down in the case of State of M.P. and others Vs. Ajit as reported in 2013(1) M.P.H.T. 225(DB) petitioner was entitled to grant of Kramonati and in terms of the circular issued by the Forest Department as is contained in Annexure P/5, petitioner was not required to possess qualification for Accountant i.e. accounts training pass to get Kramonati. Therefore, petitioner would have been fixed as was fixed on his retirement even otherwise on the post of Establishment Clerk or on account of he being granted Kramonati. Therefore, learned counsel for the State prays for and is granted two weeks' time to file reply to this pleading of Shri Sharma that petitioner was otherwise entitled to promotion to the post of Establishment Clerk or in the alternative would have earned Kramonati in terms of Forest Department circular dated 23.3.2010, Annexure P/5.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1