Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.48 seconds)
Vinod Kumar vs M/O Urban Development on 26 July, 2024 cites

Manjeet Sharma & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors. -Respondents on 28 May, 2012

In view of the aforesaid, we are of the considered view that once the very Advertisement for the relevant selection and appointment(s) in the case of Manjeet Sharma (supra) which was related to the Government of India Press at Aligarh, Nilokheri and Mayapuri got done in respect of such selection and appointment(s) was separate, the report submitted by the AS & CVO is not only separate but also distinct from that in respect of selection and appointment(s) related to the case of applicant(s) in Government of India Press, Faridabad, we are of the considered view that the order/judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Manjeet Sharma (supra) shall not be applicable in the present case.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 18 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

Chandra Prakash Shahi vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 25 April, 2000

"27. The whole case law is thus based on the peculiar facts of each individual case and it is wrong to say that decisions have been swinging like a pendulum; right, the order is valid; left, the order is punitive. It was urged before this Court, more than once including in Ram Chandra Trivedi case that there was a conflict of decisions on the question of an order being a simple termination order or a punitive order, but every time the Court rejected the contention and held that the apparent conflict was on account of different facts of different cases requiring the principles already laid down by this Court in various decisions to be applied to a different situation. But the concept of "motive" and "foundation" was always kept in view.
Supreme Court of India Cites 33 - Cited by 121 - S S Ahmad - Full Document

U.P.S.R.T.C vs U.P. Parivahan Nigam Shishukhs ... on 12 January, 1995

(Para 5.3.5(c) (L) There is no evidence to support the allegation that the norms laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Civil Appeal No. 4347-54 of 1990 in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Others vs U.P. Parivahan Nigam Shishukh Berozgar Sangh &Others was violated in the recruitment of apprentices at GIP, Nilokheri during 2008.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 256 - B L Hansaria - Full Document

Hari Chand Madan Gopal And Others vs State Of Punjab on 6 October, 1972

The distinction between the earlier case and this case was that while in Ram Narayan Das case the inquiry was made to find out if the probationer could be continued and confirmed and was, therefore, not punitive, the position in the Madan Gopal case was that the enquiry by the settlement officer was to find out if the employee was guilty of misconduct. In fact, the termination order was based on the enquiry held behind his back and was held to be punitive.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 93 - S N Dwivedi - Full Document

Ranendra Chandra Banerjee vs Union Of India on 18 February, 1963

In Ranendra Chandra Banerjee v. Union of India it being a case of a probationer to whom Rule 55-B of the Central Rules applied, Wanchoo, J. (as he then was) upheld the order on the ground that the limited purpose of the enquiry was to find out whether he could be "retained or not" in the service. In other words, the enquiry was not with a view to see if the employee had misconducted in his duties.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 54 - K N Wanchoo - Full Document
1   2 Next