Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.33 seconds)
K.Seethalakshmi vs Https://Www.Mhc.Tn.Gov.In/Judis/ on 30 September, 2021 cites

Union Of India And Another vs Kunisetty Satyanarayana on 22 November, 2006

19.3. On the other hand, Mr.Issac Mohanlal, learned Senior https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Page 24/33 W.A.No.1831/2019 etc. batch Counsel appearing for the Annamalai University, heavily relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India V. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, (2006) 12 SCC 28, wherein, reiterating the well- settled principle that ordinarily no writ lies against the show cause notice, it has been observed as follows :
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 1144 - M Katju - Full Document

Union Of India And Anr vs Vicco Laboratories on 26 November, 2007

"31. Normally, the writ court should not interfere at the stage of issuance of show-cause notice by the authorities. In such a case, the parties get ample opportunity to put forth their contentions before the authorities concerned and to satisfy the authorities concerned about the absence of case for proceeding against the person against whom the show-cause notices have been issued. Abstinence from interference at the stage of issuance of show-cause notice in order to relegate the parties to the proceedings before the authorities concerned is the normal rule. However, the said rule is not without exceptions. Where a show-cause notice is issued either without jurisdiction or in an abuse of process of law, certainly in that case, the writ court would not hesitate to interfere even at the stage of issuance of show-cause notice. The interference at the show-cause notice stage should be rare and not in a routine manner. Mere assertion by the writ petitioner that notice was without jurisdiction and/or abuse of process of law would not suffice. It should be prima facie established to be so. Where factual adjudication would be necessary, interference is ruled out."
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 95 - A Pasayat - Full Document

State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Brahma Datt Sharma And Anr on 25 February, 1987

"13. It is well settled by a series of decisions of this Court that ordinarily no writ lies against a charge-sheet or show-cause notice vide Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board v. Ramesh Kumar Singh (1996) 1 SCC 327, Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse (2004) 3 SCC 440, Ulagappa v. Divisional Commr., Mysore (2001) 10 SCC 639, State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma (1987) 2 SCC 179, etc.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 967 - K N Singh - Full Document

The Special Director And Anr vs Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse And Anr on 9 January, 2004

"13. It is well settled by a series of decisions of this Court that ordinarily no writ lies against a charge-sheet or show-cause notice vide Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board v. Ramesh Kumar Singh (1996) 1 SCC 327, Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse (2004) 3 SCC 440, Ulagappa v. Divisional Commr., Mysore (2001) 10 SCC 639, State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma (1987) 2 SCC 179, etc.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 952 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Nyadar Singh & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 23 August, 1988

"20. We may next consider whether the punishment is permissible in service jurisprudence. It is well settled that while an employee can be reverted to a lower post or service, he cannot be reverted to a post lower than the post in which he entered service (see Nyadar Singh v. Union of India, (1988) 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Page 13/33 W.A.No.1831/2019 etc. batch SCC 170. Further, it is also well settled that reversion to a lower post or service does not permit reversion to a post outside the cadre, that is, from a regular post to a daily-wage post. We are therefore of the view that the punishment inflicted on the delinquent employee not being one of the punishments enumerated in Regulation 36, is not permissible in law."
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 67 - M Rangnath - Full Document
1   2 Next