Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (2.18 seconds)
Jayant Dwarkadas Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 1 August, 2025 cites

Chairman/Managing Director, U.P. ... vs Ram Gopal on 30 January, 2020

(ii) 2020 (0) AIJEL-SC 65706 - Chairman/ Managing Director, U.P. Power Corporation Ltd., versus Ram Gopal 5.1 Learned advocate Ms.Roopal R. Patel for the Gujarat Public Service Commission has submitted that the role of respondent No.4 - GPSC is limited that has to be discharged in tendering advice to the Government on the aspect of quantum of punishment that can be imposed upon the petitioner, taking into consideration the gravity of proved charges against him; and that on conclusion of the departmental inquiry, as per the Rule, advice of the GPSC was sought for by the Disciplinary Authority on the aspect of quantum of punishment; and that taking into consideration the gravity and seriousness of the charges levelled against the the petitioner, little dereliction and negligence in duty, financial losses caused to the Government, lack of honesty in performing the duties and keeping in view the valid reasons provided by the Disciplinary Authority for imposing of punishment, since the punishment proposed by the department did not felt to be adequate by the GPSC, the GPSC tendered its advice and imposed punishment in question accordingly; and that it is imperative to consult the Page 7 of 36 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Aug 15 23:04:41 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13723/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined GPSC in respect of matters concerning discipline in view of Article 320(3)(C) of the Constitution of India as well as Rule 12 of the Gujarat Public Service Commission (Exemption from Consultation), 1960.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 79 - S A Bobde - Full Document

Bipinchandra Parshottamdas Patel ... vs State Of Gujarat & Ors on 14 April, 2003

7.2 At this stage, it would be fruitful to refer to the decision of this Court in the case of Harivadan Page 13 of 36 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Aug 15 23:04:41 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13723/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined Parshottambhai Patel versus State of Gujarat reported in 2024 (0) AIJEL-HC 247858, more particularly paras 6.1, 6.2 and 7 thereof, which read as under.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 10 - S R Babu - Full Document

Krushnakant B. Parmar vs Union Of India & Anr on 15 February, 2012

22. Learned counsel for the respondent has commended us to the decision in Krushnakant B. Parmar v. Union of India and another to highlight that in the absence of a finding returned by the Inquiry Officer or Page 19 of 36 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Aug 15 23:04:41 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13723/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined determination by the disciplinary authority that the unauthorized absence was wilful, the charge could not be treated to have been proved. To appreciate the said submission we have carefully perused the said authority.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 454 - Full Document

Tushar D. Bhatt vs State Of Gujarat & Ors on 12 February, 2009

In Tushar D. Bhatt v. State of Gujarat and another, the appellant therein had remained unauthorisedly absent for a period of six months and further had also written threatening letters and conducted some other acts of misconduct. Eventually, the employee was visited with order of dismissal and the High Court had given the stamp of approval to the same. Commenting on the conduct of the appellant the Court stated that he was not justified in remaining unauthorisedly absent from official duty for more than six months because in the interest of discipline of any institution or organization such an approach and attitude of the employee cannot be countenanced.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 48 - D Bhandari - Full Document
1   2 Next