Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.44 seconds)U.P. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi ... vs Sanjiv Rajan on 29 March, 1993
14 of the Constitution of India on the ground that the report submitted by
them is correct. Hence, by applying the principle laid down in the above
judgments, it is difficult to accept the contention of learned counsel for
the petitioners.
Khem Chand vs The Union Of India And Others on 13 December, 1957
Thus the Apex Court did not take into consideration of the
judgment in Ashok Kumar Aggarwal‟s case and other constitutional
Bench judgments of Supreme Court Khem Chand v. Union of India7,
Union of India v. R.P. Kapur8 and V.P. Girdroniya v. State of Madhya
Pradesh9; as also the other judgments of the Supreme Court in Ashok
Kumar Aggarwal; U.P. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi v. Sanjiv
Rajan10; Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Excise v. L.
Srinivasan11; and Allahabad Bank v. Deepak Kumar Bhola12 and
therefore, the interference is not necessitated in this case by this Court
based on the principle laid down in Ajay Kumar Choudhary‟s case.
Union Of India & Anr vs Ashok Kumar Aggarwal on 22 November, 2013
The learned single Judge concluded that, indefinite period of
suspension is a stigma on the employee and it would cause colossal loss
to the petitioners, being employees, since the charge memo was not filed,
the contention of these petitioners under suspension is illegal. But, this
reason is factually incorrect, as the charge memo was already served on
the petitioners on 12.08.2020 itself i.e. within two months from the date
of placing these petitioners under suspension. A copy of the charge memo
and suspension order vide proceedings No.3430252/D1-2/2020-1 dated
12.08.2020 are also placed on record to establish the same. Therefore, the
learned single Judge erroneously concluded that, no charge memo was
served on these petitioners. Therefore, the reason recorded by the learned
14
W.P.No.10787 of 2012 & batch dated 14.03.2013
CJ & MSM,J
WA Nos.682, 683 & 687 of 2021
26
single Judge and the revocation of order, based on the principle of Ajay
Kumar Choudary case (referred supra) is contrary to the law and facts.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Allahabad Bank And Anr vs Deepak Kumar Bhola on 13 March, 1997
Thus the Apex Court did not take into consideration of the
judgment in Ashok Kumar Aggarwal‟s case and other constitutional
Bench judgments of Supreme Court Khem Chand v. Union of India7,
Union of India v. R.P. Kapur8 and V.P. Girdroniya v. State of Madhya
Pradesh9; as also the other judgments of the Supreme Court in Ashok
Kumar Aggarwal; U.P. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi v. Sanjiv
Rajan10; Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Excise v. L.
Srinivasan11; and Allahabad Bank v. Deepak Kumar Bhola12 and
therefore, the interference is not necessitated in this case by this Court
based on the principle laid down in Ajay Kumar Choudhary‟s case.
Buddana Venkata Murali Krishna vs State Of A.P. Rep., By Its Principal ... on 1 June, 2015
All
these principles were considered by the Division Bench of High Court of
Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of
7
1963 AIR 687
8
AIR 1964 SC 787
9 (1970) 1 SCC 362
10 1993 Supp (3) SCC 483
11 (1996) 3 SCC 157
12 (1997) 4 SCC 1
CJ & MSM,J
WA Nos.682, 683 & 687 of 2021
23
Andhra Pradesh in Buddana Venkata Murali Krishna v. State Of
A.P.13 to which one of us (i.e. MSM,J) is one of the members of the
Division Bench. Therefore, applying the same principle to the present
facts of the case, it is difficult to interfere with the impugned order of
suspension, keeping in view of the seriousness and gravity of the
misconduct contemplated to be enquired into and the material disclosure
of report by the lease holder, while passing impugned order of suspension
of the petitioner is supported by prima facie evidence.
Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs Union Of India Thr Its Secretary & Anr on 16 February, 2015
Learned counsel for the petitioners, in addition to the judgment in
"Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India" (referred supra), placed
reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in "Union of India v. Ashok
Kumar Aggarwal" (referred supra), which we referred in the earlier
paragraphs, he also drew our attention to the principle laid down in
another judgment of the Apex Court in "State of Tamil Nadu,
represented by Secretary to Government (Home) v. Promod Kumar,
IPS15", where the Apex Court held that suspension order, if continued for
more than 6 years, the same is held to be illegal in the circumstances of
the particular case. In such circumstances, continued suspension of
officer is no longer required since his reinstatement would not be threat to
fair trial. But this principle has no direct application to the present facts
of the case since charge memos were already served and enquiry was
commenced, but the writ petitioners are avoiding the enquiry, obtained
interim direction against completion of enquiry.
A.B. Venkateswara Rao, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 30 September, 2020
In addition to the above
judgment, learned counsel for the petitioners would draw our attention to
the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in "A.B.Venkateswara
Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh16", where this Court held as follows:
Union Of India & Ors vs J. Ahmed on 7 March, 1979
CJ & MSM,J
WA Nos.682, 683 & 687 of 2021
13
In Union of India v. J. Ahmed2, the Supreme Court had an
occasion to consider the scope of the expression "devotion to duty" and
has observed as follows: