Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.30 seconds)
Somnath Bose vs M/O Information And Broadcasting on 3 November, 2016 cites

Sube Singh vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 3 February, 2006

11. The applicant filed his rejoinder on 7.10.2014 more, or less reiterating his contention as already made in this OA. He had placed reliance upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in 7 OA 3389/2013 the case of State Bank of India & Ors (supra) and in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Yamuna Shanker Misra & Anr (1997 (4) SCC 7) dated 21.02.1997, and the order passed by this Tribunal in the case of Anil Kumar Vs. Union of India ( 2007 (2) SLJ 63 CAT). It was submitted that personal bias and prejudice of the Reporting Officer had not been looked into by the respondent and that the remarks recorded by the Reporting Officer ought to have been reviewed by an officer who at least had a functional contact with the official reported upon, and had supervised his work and conduct for at least three months in the concerned year. He, had, therefore, assailed the orders of the Competent Authority, the Hon'ble MOS, also to be bad in law, as it appeared to have been prepared hastily, and had virtually marred the promotional prospects of the applicant.
Supreme Court of India Cites 53 - Cited by 232 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

State Of U.P vs Yamuna Shanker Misra & Anr on 21 February, 1997

11. The applicant filed his rejoinder on 7.10.2014 more, or less reiterating his contention as already made in this OA. He had placed reliance upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in 7 OA 3389/2013 the case of State Bank of India & Ors (supra) and in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Yamuna Shanker Misra & Anr (1997 (4) SCC 7) dated 21.02.1997, and the order passed by this Tribunal in the case of Anil Kumar Vs. Union of India ( 2007 (2) SLJ 63 CAT). It was submitted that personal bias and prejudice of the Reporting Officer had not been looked into by the respondent and that the remarks recorded by the Reporting Officer ought to have been reviewed by an officer who at least had a functional contact with the official reported upon, and had supervised his work and conduct for at least three months in the concerned year. He, had, therefore, assailed the orders of the Competent Authority, the Hon'ble MOS, also to be bad in law, as it appeared to have been prepared hastily, and had virtually marred the promotional prospects of the applicant.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 247 - Full Document

Mahesh Kumar Mudgil vs State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors on 8 December, 1997

4. In filing this OA, the applicant has taken the ground that the adverse remarks, as recorded are not true, and have been recorded with bias, and in an arbitrary manner, without the Reporting Officer and the Reviewing Officer having considered all the facts in totality. He has, therefore, sought shelter behind the 3 OA 3389/2013 judgment in the case of Mahesh Kumar Vs. State of UP (1984 (3) SLR 109 DB).
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 10 - D P Wadhwa - Full Document

Jc-116244 Ex-Subedar Joginder Singh vs Union Of India And Ors. on 16 October, 2001

6. He had further alleged that the adverse remarks were not only recorded without any memo/advise or warning, but have also hampered his promotional avenues, and had sought shelter behind an order passed by a Coordinate Bench at Calcutta Bench of this Tribunal in Joginder Singh Vs. Union of India (1989) 3 SLR 199 CAT (Calcutta). He had also submitted that in the case of 1999 (1) SLR 436 P&H), the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court had also accepted the prayer for expunction of the adverse remarks.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 46 - S V Patil - Full Document

Anil Kumar Neotia And Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 26 April, 1988

11. The applicant filed his rejoinder on 7.10.2014 more, or less reiterating his contention as already made in this OA. He had placed reliance upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in 7 OA 3389/2013 the case of State Bank of India & Ors (supra) and in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Yamuna Shanker Misra & Anr (1997 (4) SCC 7) dated 21.02.1997, and the order passed by this Tribunal in the case of Anil Kumar Vs. Union of India ( 2007 (2) SLJ 63 CAT). It was submitted that personal bias and prejudice of the Reporting Officer had not been looked into by the respondent and that the remarks recorded by the Reporting Officer ought to have been reviewed by an officer who at least had a functional contact with the official reported upon, and had supervised his work and conduct for at least three months in the concerned year. He, had, therefore, assailed the orders of the Competent Authority, the Hon'ble MOS, also to be bad in law, as it appeared to have been prepared hastily, and had virtually marred the promotional prospects of the applicant.
Supreme Court of India Cites 33 - Cited by 229 - S Mukharji - Full Document
1