Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 21 (0.33 seconds)
Suraj Dayanand More vs Posts on 4 May, 2026 cites

Avtar Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 21 July, 2016

There is discretion with the employer to terminate the services. Character, conduct and antecedents do have some impact on the nature of employment and there has to be due consideration of said aspects which is done in the instant case. The action in the present matter is taken for non-disclosure of specific information asked for. The case of Avtar Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 21 July, 2016, (2016) 8 SCC 47 wherein it is held that For determining suppression or false information attestation/verification form has to be specific, not vague. Only such information which was required to be specifically mentioned has to be disclosed and such specific information asked for by clause 15(i) and 15(ii) of attestation verification form is not disclosed by the applicant in the present case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 38 - Cited by 1443 - A Mishra - Full Document

Commr.Of Police And Ors vs Sandeep Kumar on 17 March, 2011

31. We have also examined the judgment in State of T.N. v. J. Raghunees [State of T.N. v. J. Raghunees, (2023) 16 SCC 647 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1379] and we find that the case of the appellant is more aligned with the facts in the judgment of this Court in Pawan Kumar [Pawan Kumar v. Union of India, (2023) 12 SCC 317] , Sandeep Kumar [Commr. of Police v. Sandeep Kumar, (2011) 4 SCC 644 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 426 : (2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 734] and Ram Kumar [Ram Kumar v. State of U.P., (2011) 14 SCC 709 : (2013) 2 SCC (L&S) 773] .
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 385 - Full Document

Pawan Kumar vs Union Of India on 2 May, 2022

20. Consequently, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court dated 17-11-2015 [Pawan Kumar v. Union of India, 2015 SCC OnLine Del 14648] and the order of discharge dated 24-4- 2015 and dated 23-12-2021 are hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the appellant in service on the post of Constable on which he was selected pursuant to his participation in reference to Employment Notice No. 1/2011 dated 27-2-2011. We make it clear that the appellant will not be entitled for the arrears of salary for the period during which he has not served the force and at the same time he will be entitled for all notional benefits, including pay, seniority and other consequential benefits, etc. Necessary orders shall be passed within a period of one month from today. No costs."
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 36 - A Rastogi - Full Document

Nirmala Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh 40 Wps/432/2017 ... on 18 May, 2018

17. For the aforesaid reasons, we allow the appeal, set aside the order [Ram Kumar v. State of U.P. Writ-A No. 40674 of 2007, order dated 30- 8-2007 (All)] of the learned Single Judge and the impugned order [Ram Kumar v. State of U.P., 2009 SCC OnLine All 2622] of the Division Bench and allow the writ petition of the appellant and VIJAY Digitally signed quash the order dated 8-8-2007 of the Senior KUMAR by VIJAY VERMA KUMAR VERMA Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad. The appellant will be taken back in service within a 30 O.A. No. 670/2021 period of two months from today but he will not be entitled to any back wages for the period he has remained out of service. There shall be no order as to costs."
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 4774 - M M Shrivastava - Full Document

Ram Kumar vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 19 August, 2011

In Ram Kumar v. State of U.P. [Ram Kumar v. State of U.P., (2011) 14 SCC 709 : (2013) 2 SCC (L&S) 773] , another case noticed and discussed in Avtar Singh [Avtar Singh v. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471 : (2016) 2 SCC (L&S) 425] arising out of near identical facts and construing a similar clause in the verification form, this Court, while granting relief, held as follows : (Ram Kumar case [Ram Kumar v. State of U.P., (2011) 14 SCC 709 : (2013) 2 SCC (L&S) 773] , SCC pp. 711-13, paras 9, 12-14 and 17) "9. We have carefully read the Government Order dated 28-4-1958 on the subject "Verification of the character and antecedents of government servants before their first appointment" and it is stated in the Government Order that the Governor has been pleased to lay down the following instructions in supersession of all the previous orders:
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 15 - Full Document

Ram Chandra Kailash Kumar And Company ... vs State Of U.P. And Anr. on 25 March, 1980

17. For the aforesaid reasons, we allow the appeal, set aside the order [Ram Kumar v. State of U.P. Writ-A No. 40674 of 2007, order dated 30- 8-2007 (All)] of the learned Single Judge and the impugned order [Ram Kumar v. State of U.P., 2009 SCC OnLine All 2622] of the Division Bench and allow the writ petition of the appellant and VIJAY Digitally signed quash the order dated 8-8-2007 of the Senior KUMAR by VIJAY VERMA KUMAR VERMA Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad. The appellant will be taken back in service within a 30 O.A. No. 670/2021 period of two months from today but he will not be entitled to any back wages for the period he has remained out of service. There shall be no order as to costs."
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 294 - N L Untwalia - Full Document
1   2 3 Next