cites: 12935014

Article 311 in Constitution of India [Constitution]

Constitution Article Cites 3 - Cited by 8355

Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]

Constitution Article Cites 5 - Cited by 1058585

S. Ramachandra Raju vs State Of Orissa on 31 August, 1994

// 37 // No.42), Petitioner was given the benefit of promotion vide order dtd.19.06.2007 under Annexure-2. Therefore, in view of the parameters fixed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Umed Bhai M. Patel in para-11, such conduct of the Petitioner till 08.12.2006, could not have been taken into consideration while recommending for premature retirement of the Petitioner. 6.4. Even though Petitioner was implicated in the Vigilance Proceeding in Bhubaneswar Vigilance P.S. Case No.34 dtd.10.11.2021 and he was placed under suspension vide order dt.11.11.2021 under Annexure- A/2, but since Petitioner has yet been charge-sheeted, it cannot be held that Petitioner has committed the mis- appropriation which is the subject matter in the Vigilance case.

Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 166 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Article 309 in Constitution of India [Constitution]

Constitution Article Cites 2 - Cited by 13610

Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd.,, ... vs The Addl. Cit, Range-1,, Baroda on 31 January, 2023

Independent Sugar Corporation Limited Vs. Girish Sriram Juneja 3 Checkmate Service Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 19 - Cited by 323 - Full Document

State Of Gujarat vs Umedbhai M. Patel on 27 February, 2001

Therefore, the conduct of the Review Committee in recommending compulsory retirement fails to pass the test of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umedbhai Page 33 of 39 // 34 // M Patel's case (supra). Therefore, the decision taken by the review committee in the present case calls for interference by this Court.

Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 276 - K G Balakrishnan - Full Document

Baikuntha Nath Das And Anr vs Chief Distt. Medical Officer, Baripada ... on 19 February, 1992

1. Baikuntha Nath Das Vs. CDMO, Baripada 1992 (2) SCC 299.

Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 579 - B P Reddy - Full Document

M.S. Bindra vs Union Of India And Ors on 1 September, 1998

In view of the decision referred to above. I am of the opinion that there being no adverse entry in the C.C.Rs, of the Plaintiff and the Review Committee having recommended twice for his continuance in service, there was no reason for the Defendants to retire the Plaintiff prematurely. Mere pendency of a vigilance investigation was not enough to say that the Plaintiff had a doubtful integrity. On the other hand from the record it appears that the said vigilance enquiry ended in final report in favour of the Plaintiff. I therefore, agree with trial Court that the materials were not sufficient to hold that the Plaintiff's retirement was necessary in public interest. 5.8. In the case of Epari Basudev Rao, this Court in Paragraphs-32 & 51 has held as under:-

Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 190 - Full Document