Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (1.17 seconds)The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Section 50 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Ashok Kumar Monga vs Uco Bank & Others on 31 August, 1999
15. The third contention of the appellant is that Member (Administration) was not a competent authority to impose stiff major penalty. It was submitted that the appellant was appointed as Assistant Commissioner on the recommendation of the UPSC by Delhi Electric Supply Committee (DESC, for short) in 1986 and, therefore, said Committee was the appellant's appointing authority. The said Committee later on became Delhi Vidyut Board (DVB) and accordingly the order of punishment could have been only passed by Delhi Vidyut Board (DVB) and not by Member (Administration). Reliance in this regard was placed upon Article 311(1) of the Constitution of India and the following judgments:- Krishna Kumar v. Divisional Asstt. Electrical Engineer , Mysore SRTC v. Mirja Khasim Ali Beg , Ashok Kr. Monga v. UCO Bank and Ors. , Gafoor Mia Kausal v. Director, DMRL reported in 1988 (6) ATC 675 and Union of India and Ors. v. R. Reddappa and Anr. .
Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. vs R. Reddappa And Anr. on 5 August, 1993
15. The third contention of the appellant is that Member (Administration) was not a competent authority to impose stiff major penalty. It was submitted that the appellant was appointed as Assistant Commissioner on the recommendation of the UPSC by Delhi Electric Supply Committee (DESC, for short) in 1986 and, therefore, said Committee was the appellant's appointing authority. The said Committee later on became Delhi Vidyut Board (DVB) and accordingly the order of punishment could have been only passed by Delhi Vidyut Board (DVB) and not by Member (Administration). Reliance in this regard was placed upon Article 311(1) of the Constitution of India and the following judgments:- Krishna Kumar v. Divisional Asstt. Electrical Engineer , Mysore SRTC v. Mirja Khasim Ali Beg , Ashok Kr. Monga v. UCO Bank and Ors. , Gafoor Mia Kausal v. Director, DMRL reported in 1988 (6) ATC 675 and Union of India and Ors. v. R. Reddappa and Anr. .
Ajit Kumar Nag vs General Manager (Pj), Indian Oil ... on 6 February, 2004
18. The said Article is applicable to an employee of the Central Government or an employee of the State Government. It is not applicable to employees of Delhi Vidyut Board as they are not employees of the Central or the State Government. Reference in this regard can be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ajit Kr. Nag v. G.M. (PJ), Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. .
State Bank Of India & Ors. Etc vs S. Vijaya Kumar & Ors. Etc on 18 July, 1990
25. The Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India v. S. Vijaya Kumar while examining similar provisions contained in Regulation 55(2)(a) of the relevant State Bank of India Rules has observed:
State Rep. By Inspector Of Police & Ors vs N.M.T. Joy Immaculate on 5 May, 2004
In the case of State v. N.M.T. Joy Immaculate , it was observed as under:
Bishun Narain Mishra vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others on 7 October, 1964
In Bishun Narain Misra v. State of Uttar Pradesh it was held that new rule reducing the age of retirement from 53 years to 55 years could not be said to be retrospective. The proviso to the new rule and the second notification were only methods to tide over the difficult situation which would arise in the public service if the new rule was applied at once and also to meet any financial objection arising out of the enforcement of the new rule. The new rule therefore, could not be struck down on the ground that it was retrospective in operation.