Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.52 seconds)State Of U.P. And Others vs Ramesh Chandra Mangalik on 4 March, 2002
19. The Tribunal after considering the
judgment of the Supreme Court in case of
State of U.P. and others v. Ramesh Chandra
Mangalik reported in AIR 2002 SC 1241 as well
as judgment of this Court in case of
Gautambhai Devshankar Dave v. State of
Gujarat reported in 2004(1) GLH 603 relied
Page 22 of 27
Downloaded on : Fri Aug 05 21:27:29 IST 2022
C/SCA/25680/2006 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2022
upon by respondent school management as well
as judgment of the Apex Court in case of
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Chintaman
Sadashiva Waishampayan reported in AIR 1961
SC 1623 relied upon on behalf of the
petitioner has held that the documents which
the management has relied upon against the
petitioner have been supplied to him. It was
further observed that the petitioner has not
been able to pinpoint the particular document
and to demonstrate as to how such document
was relevant and what prejudice is caused to
the petitioner due to non supply of such
document. The Tribunal has also rightly held
that charge-sheet issued under the signature
of Secretary of respondent no.1 is also not
fatal to the inquiry as before there was no
such rule which prohibit the Secretary of
respondent no.1 to issue charge-sheet under
his signature and charges are formulated by
respondent no.1 school management. The
Tribunal has therefore, held that petitioner
was not able to point out any prejudice
caused to him.
Gautambhai Devshankar Dave vs State Of Gujarat on 26 December, 2003
19. The Tribunal after considering the
judgment of the Supreme Court in case of
State of U.P. and others v. Ramesh Chandra
Mangalik reported in AIR 2002 SC 1241 as well
as judgment of this Court in case of
Gautambhai Devshankar Dave v. State of
Gujarat reported in 2004(1) GLH 603 relied
Page 22 of 27
Downloaded on : Fri Aug 05 21:27:29 IST 2022
C/SCA/25680/2006 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2022
upon by respondent school management as well
as judgment of the Apex Court in case of
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Chintaman
Sadashiva Waishampayan reported in AIR 1961
SC 1623 relied upon on behalf of the
petitioner has held that the documents which
the management has relied upon against the
petitioner have been supplied to him. It was
further observed that the petitioner has not
been able to pinpoint the particular document
and to demonstrate as to how such document
was relevant and what prejudice is caused to
the petitioner due to non supply of such
document. The Tribunal has also rightly held
that charge-sheet issued under the signature
of Secretary of respondent no.1 is also not
fatal to the inquiry as before there was no
such rule which prohibit the Secretary of
respondent no.1 to issue charge-sheet under
his signature and charges are formulated by
respondent no.1 school management. The
Tribunal has therefore, held that petitioner
was not able to point out any prejudice
caused to him.
State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Chintaman Sadashiva Waishampayan on 1 November, 1960
19. The Tribunal after considering the
judgment of the Supreme Court in case of
State of U.P. and others v. Ramesh Chandra
Mangalik reported in AIR 2002 SC 1241 as well
as judgment of this Court in case of
Gautambhai Devshankar Dave v. State of
Gujarat reported in 2004(1) GLH 603 relied
Page 22 of 27
Downloaded on : Fri Aug 05 21:27:29 IST 2022
C/SCA/25680/2006 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2022
upon by respondent school management as well
as judgment of the Apex Court in case of
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Chintaman
Sadashiva Waishampayan reported in AIR 1961
SC 1623 relied upon on behalf of the
petitioner has held that the documents which
the management has relied upon against the
petitioner have been supplied to him. It was
further observed that the petitioner has not
been able to pinpoint the particular document
and to demonstrate as to how such document
was relevant and what prejudice is caused to
the petitioner due to non supply of such
document. The Tribunal has also rightly held
that charge-sheet issued under the signature
of Secretary of respondent no.1 is also not
fatal to the inquiry as before there was no
such rule which prohibit the Secretary of
respondent no.1 to issue charge-sheet under
his signature and charges are formulated by
respondent no.1 school management. The
Tribunal has therefore, held that petitioner
was not able to point out any prejudice
caused to him.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 27 in The Gujarat Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Act, 1972 [Entire Act]
1