Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.21 seconds)
Kuldeep Singh vs Gnctd on 28 July, 2023 cites

Sumit Sharma & Ors vs State Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 5 April, 2016

14. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the considered view that this case is squarely covered by a catena of cases relied on behalf of the applicant, including the common Order/Judgment dated 10.2.2022 in Sumit Sharma (supra) and a batch of cases as well as order dated 27.4.2023 in Neeraj Kumar (supra). Therefore, the present OA deserves to be partly allowed and the same is partly allowed with the following directions:-
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 2 - P S Teji - Full Document

Neeraj Kumar vs Delhi Police And Anr. on 10 March, 2015

In the impugned order(s), the respondents have not disclosed that any effort was made by them to conduct the enquiry nor there is any evidence that in spite of their efforts, they had not been able to produce the witness(es) to lead evidence against the applicant(s). Rather the respondents have themselves filed the final challan(s) with a list of witness(es) before the concerned learned Court(s) and in a few cases, the accused(s) had been acquitted as well. In a few cases, witnesses have been examined before the concerned learned Court(s). Moreover, co-delinquent in the cases of Neeraj Kumar (supra) and Ramesh Kumar (supra), the similar impugned orders have been set aside by the Tribunal and the orders of the Tribunal have also attained finality.
Delhi High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 7 - K Gambhir - Full Document

Chandigarh Administration And Ors. vs Ex. S.I. Gurdit Singh on 27 March, 1997

9. So far as reliance placed by the learned counsel for the respondents on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandigarh Administration (supra). In the said case, respondent - a Sub-Inspector was a terror in the area and was a very influential person. No person was likely to come forward to give any statement regarding the incident against him and therefore it was found that no purpose will serve to have any departmental enquiry against him. Hence, it was recommended that stern disciplinary action be taken against him, as reported by the DSP in the said case. But the applicant in the instant case was a Constable and there is no such kind of report against the applicant in the said case. As such, the instant case is distinguishable on facts.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 7 - Full Document
1   2 Next