Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.45 seconds)
Kaminiben Thakorbhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 24 December, 2021 cites

Union Territory, Chandigarh ... vs Pradeep Kumar on 8 January, 2018

"The case of the petitioners cannot be read in isolation that they are not responsible for the fabricated orders of transfer since such orders have been individually passed in favour of the petitioners. As regards the contentions raised by the learned advocate Mr.Jasani that since the petitioners were acquitted, they are liable to be reinstated, the same does not merit acceptance. It is no more res integra that while the standard of proof in a criminal case is the proof beyond all reasonable doubt, the proof in a departmental proceeding is preponderance of probabilities. The Supreme Court in the case of Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration vs. Pradeep Kumar, 2018 (1) S.C.C. 797 has observed thus:
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 70 - R Banumathi - Full Document

Dy.Inspector Gen.Of Police & Anr vs S.Samuthiram on 30 November, 2012

"The acquittal in a criminal case is not conclusive of the suitability of the candidates in the concerned post. If a person is acquitted or discharged, it cannot always be inferred that he was falsely involved or he had no criminal antecedents. Unless it is an honourable acquittal, the candidate cannot claim the benefit of the case. What is honourable acquittal, was considered by this Court in Deputy Inspector General of Police and Another v. S. Samuthiram (2013) 1 SCC 598, in which this Court held as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 367 - K Radhakrishnan - Full Document

Chandra Prakash Shahi vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 25 April, 2000

Special Civil Application No. 4439 of 2017 decided on 8th May, 2019, the question considered by the court was whether the order punitive in nature and casting stigma ought to have preceded by regular inquiry against the petitioner in respect of the allegations mentioned in the order even though the petitioner was appointed for a fixed term of five years. The court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Chandra Prakash Sahi vs. State of U.P. [(2000) 5 SCC 152] in which the Apex Court explained the concept of motive and foundation which provided the basis for judging whether termination could be said to be founded on misconduct to become stigmatic. The impugned order in that case was set aside. The respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioner on the original post of Assistant Motor Vehicle Vehicle, Class-III with continuity of service with back wages as well as with consequential benefits which may arise as if order of termination was never passed. It was held that the order was stigmatic and was passed without following regular departmental inquiry.
Supreme Court of India Cites 33 - Cited by 121 - S S Ahmad - Full Document

Manishbhai Nayanbhai Mod vs Vadodara Municipal Corporation on 9 August, 2017

6.2 The law laid down in Chetan Rajgor (supra), in Manishbhai Nayanbhai Mod (supra) as well as in Sandip Ajitsinh Vaghela (supra) and in Rahul Vank (supra) holds the field. In respect of the impugned order in the instant case, the said law will apply. A vain attempt was made on behalf of the respondents to submit that when learned single Judge decided the petition and passed the impugned order, the above decisions were not holding the field.
Gujarat High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 41 - S G Shah - Full Document

Sandip Ajitsinh Vaghela vs State Of Gujarat on 7 August, 2018

6.2 The law laid down in Chetan Rajgor (supra), in Manishbhai Nayanbhai Mod (supra) as well as in Sandip Ajitsinh Vaghela (supra) and in Rahul Vank (supra) holds the field. In respect of the impugned order in the instant case, the said law will apply. A vain attempt was made on behalf of the respondents to submit that when learned single Judge decided the petition and passed the impugned order, the above decisions were not holding the field.
Gujarat High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 34 - N V Anjaria - Full Document

Rahul Aydanbhai Vank vs State Of Gujarat on 5 September, 2018

6.2 The law laid down in Chetan Rajgor (supra), in Manishbhai Nayanbhai Mod (supra) as well as in Sandip Ajitsinh Vaghela (supra) and in Rahul Vank (supra) holds the field. In respect of the impugned order in the instant case, the said law will apply. A vain attempt was made on behalf of the respondents to submit that when learned single Judge decided the petition and passed the impugned order, the above decisions were not holding the field.
Gujarat High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 94 - N V Anjaria - Full Document

Chaitanya Prakash & Anr vs H.Omkarappa on 12 January, 2010

"8. Even decision relied by learned Assistant Government Pleader in the case of Chaitanya Prakash and Another v. H. Omlarappa reported in (2010) 2 SCC 623 quotes decision in the case of Pavanendra Narayan Verma vs. Sanjay Gandhi PGI of Medical Sciences [(2002) 1 SCC 520] where three tests are enumerated to determine whether in substance an order of termination is punitive or not. We find in the present case all above tests namely a full scale formal inquiry, allegation involving moral turpitude or misconduct and culminating into guilt stands satisfied and therefore we have no hesitation to Page 10 of 14 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 14:27:58 IST 2022 C/LPA/761/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/12/2021 hold that the learned Single Judge committed no error of fact or law or jurisdiction warranting interference in this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent."
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 106 - M Sharma - Full Document

Pavanendra Narayan Verma vs Sanjay Gandhi P.G.I. Of Medical Sci. & ... on 5 November, 2001

"8. Even decision relied by learned Assistant Government Pleader in the case of Chaitanya Prakash and Another v. H. Omlarappa reported in (2010) 2 SCC 623 quotes decision in the case of Pavanendra Narayan Verma vs. Sanjay Gandhi PGI of Medical Sciences [(2002) 1 SCC 520] where three tests are enumerated to determine whether in substance an order of termination is punitive or not. We find in the present case all above tests namely a full scale formal inquiry, allegation involving moral turpitude or misconduct and culminating into guilt stands satisfied and therefore we have no hesitation to Page 10 of 14 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 14:27:58 IST 2022 C/LPA/761/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/12/2021 hold that the learned Single Judge committed no error of fact or law or jurisdiction warranting interference in this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent."
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 367 - R Pal - Full Document

Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd vs Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha on 19 November, 1979

6.1 The Supreme Court in Gujarat Steel Tubes Limited v. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha [(1980) 2 SCC 593] stated and observed thus, "53. Masters and servants cannot be permitted to play hide and seek with the law of dismissals and the plain and proper criteria are not to be misdirected by terminological cover-ups or by appeal to psychic processes but must be grounded on the substantive reason for the order, whether disclosed or undisclosed. The Court will find out from other proceedings or documents connected with the formal order of termination what the true ground for the termination is. If, thus scrutinised, the order has a punitive flavour in cause or consequence, it is dismissal. If it falls short of this test, it cannot be called a punishment. To put it slightly differently, a termination effected because the master is satisfied of the misconduct and of the consequent desirability of terminating the service of the delinquent servant, is a dismissal, even if he had the right in law to terminate with an innocent order under the standing order or otherwise. Whether, in such a case the grounds are recorded in a different proceeding from the formal order does not detract from its nature. Nor the fact that, after being satisfied of the guilt, the master abandons the enquiry and proceeds to terminate. Given an alleged misconduct and a live nexus between it and the termination of service the conclusion is dismissal, even if full benefits as on simple termination, are given and non-injurious terminology is Page 11 of 14 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 14:27:58 IST 2022 C/LPA/761/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/12/2021 used."
Supreme Court of India Cites 60 - Cited by 777 - V R Iyer - Full Document
1   2 Next