Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (1.73 seconds)
Canara Bank, Head Office, J.C. Road, ... vs M. Ramachandrappa on 3 June, 1999 cites

H.L. Mehra vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 23 April, 1974

In H.L. Mehra v Union of India and Others, a question arose whether the order of suspension comes to an end on dismissal of the employee and on setting aside the dismissal order, or whether the order of suspension revives and continues under the rules - clause (5-b) of Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. Justice Bhagwati speaking for the Court elaborately considered the rival contentions and held that the order of suspension made against the appellant was one made pending enquiry and it was not an order imposing penalty after the enquiry and after enquiry, an order of dismissal was passed as a penalty, and with the order of dismissal, the order of suspension lapses and held that the order of dismissal replaces the order of suspension which has ceased to exist.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 18 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

Tekraj Vasandi Alias K.L. Basandhi vs Union Of India & Others on 10 December, 1987

In Tekraj Vasandi alias KL. Basandhi v Union of India and Others, the Supreme Court was considering the case of dismissal of an employee of the Institute of Constitutional and Parliamentary Studies. The Supreme Court set aside the order of dismissal. It was argued before the Supreme Court that after setting aside the dismissal order, the suspension imposed on the employee pending enquiry will continue and therefore, the said employee has to continue in suspension until the enquiry is completed. The Supreme Court negatived the said contention and held that the appellant shall be deemed to have been restored to service and therefore, is entitled to the salary for the past period.
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 144 - M Rangnath - Full Document

Om Prakash Gupta vs State Of U. P.(With Connected Appeals) on 11 January, 1957

In Om Prakash Gupta v State of Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court held that where an order of suspension is made against a Government servant pending an inquiry and as the result of inquiry an order of dismissal by way of penalty has been passed, the order of suspension lapses with the order and the subsequent declaration by a Civil Court that the order of dismissal was illegal cannot revive the order of suspension which did not exist.
Supreme Court of India Cites 33 - Cited by 174 - P G Menon - Full Document

Narendra Singh vs Chhotey Singh And Anr. on 9 August, 1983

In the absence of such direction, if the said period has to be treated as not in service, it amounts to amending the order of the Appellate Authority and reducing the part of the order which is not within the purview of the Court nor there is any rule or regulation to that effect that where an Appellate Authority is silent about the suspension period, it has to be deemed that the said period has to be treated as not on duty. In the absence of any such rules or regulations or directions in the order of the Appellate Authority, it cannot be inferred that the said period has to be treated as not on duty. Therefore, we are not able to accede to the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant. Further, the words "as he thinks fit" were interpreted by the Supreme Court in Narendra Singh v Chhotey Singh and Another.
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 14 - Full Document
1