Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.23 seconds)Canara Bank vs V.K. Awasthy on 31 March, 2005
In 'AIR 2005 SC 2090'; Canara Bank v. V. K. Awasthy, the Hon'ble
Apex Court, while dealing with the extent and scope of the principles of
natural justice, held as under:
Kishore Hegde vs Sebi on 5 November, 2019
In the
celebrated case of Cooper v. Wandsworth Board of Works, [1963]
413 ER 414, the principle was thus stated:
Ghulam Mohammad Lone vs State Of J&K; on 5 October, 2018
09. An almost the same view has been repeated and reiterated by this Court
in the case of 'Ghulam Mohammad v. State of J&K', reported in '1998 SLJ
273', the relevant excerpts of which are reproduced below, verbatim et
literatim:
Syed Ashiq Hussain Bukhari vs State Of J&K; And Others on 27 October, 2017
13. The record placed by the respondents before this Court does not provide
even an inkling of how and in what manner the enquiry was conducted into
the matter of the unauthorized absence of the petitioner. There is no evidence
on record to state and show that the statement summarizing the alleged
misconduct on the part of the petitioner was read over and explained to him.
Not even a murmur has been made to state that any evidence was recorded in
the case. The procedure laid down for conducting the enquiry as laid down in
the rules cited above does not appear to have been followed at any stage, as a
consequence of which, the order of discharge cannot survive and sustain in
the eyes of law.
Jahangir Ahmad Mir And Ors. vs . State Of J&K And Ors. on 13 May, 2019
In case titled 'Jehangir Ahmad Mir v. State of J&K', reported in '1998
SLJ 134', this Court had the occasion to examine the range, limits and the
scope of Rules 337 and 359 of the Jammu and Kashmir Police Rules read with
Section 126 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir and Article 311 of the
Indian Constitution and it held as under:
Ghulam Mohammad Chopan vs Sr. Superintendent Of Police & Ors on 4 October, 2019
In 'Ghulam Ahmad & Ors. v. Sr. Superintendent of Police', reported
in '1988 JKLR 1367', although a departmental enquiry was conducted into
the alleged callousness in duty on the part of the petitioners, who were Police
Constables, yet the Court came to the conclusion that the provisions of Rule
359 of the Jammu and Kashmir Police Manual had not been complied with
while conducting the enquiry and, therefore, the Court opined that the
impugned order imposing penalty of dismissal upon the petitioners was
unconstitutional, illegal and bad in law.
1