Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.97 seconds)
State Of J&K; And Others vs Subash Chander Raina on 6 February, 2018 cites

M.S. Bindra vs Union Of India And Ors on 1 September, 1998

19. Judicial review of an order of compulsory retirement, passed not by way of any punitive measure but for cleansing the administration of inefficient and corrupt public servants without attaching any stigma, has been the subject matter of adjudication in several cases before the Supreme Court as well as in this Court. It would be relevant to refer to the observations made by the Supreme Court at Paragraph No. 13 of the case titled "M.S. Bindra v. Union of India &Ors., (1998) 7 SCC 310", which is reproduced hereunder:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 190 - Full Document

Manager Govt. Branch Press &. Anr vs D. B. Belliawpa on 30 November, 1978

"18. In a case of this nature the appellant has not alleged malice of fact. The requirements to comply with the directions contained in the said Circular Letter dated 14- 8-1981 were necessary to be complied with in a case of this nature. Non-compliance wherewith would amount to malice in law (See Govt. Branch Press v. D.B Belliappa (1979) 1 SCC 477, S.R Venkataraman v. Union of India (1979) 2 SCC 491 and P. Mohanan Pillai v. State of Kerala (2007) 9 SCC 497). Thus, when an order suffers from malice in law, neither any averment as such is required to be made nor strict proof thereof is insisted upon. Such an order being illegal would be wholly unsustainable."
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 299 - R S Sarkaria - Full Document

Smt. S. R. Venkataraman vs Union Of India & Anr on 2 November, 1978

"18. In a case of this nature the appellant has not alleged malice of fact. The requirements to comply with the directions contained in the said Circular Letter dated 14- 8-1981 were necessary to be complied with in a case of this nature. Non-compliance wherewith would amount to malice in law (See Govt. Branch Press v. D.B Belliappa (1979) 1 SCC 477, S.R Venkataraman v. Union of India (1979) 2 SCC 491 and P. Mohanan Pillai v. State of Kerala (2007) 9 SCC 497). Thus, when an order suffers from malice in law, neither any averment as such is required to be made nor strict proof thereof is insisted upon. Such an order being illegal would be wholly unsustainable."
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 284 - P N Shinghal - Full Document

P. Mohanan Pillai vs State Of Kerala & Ors on 23 February, 2007

"18. In a case of this nature the appellant has not alleged malice of fact. The requirements to comply with the directions contained in the said Circular Letter dated 14- 8-1981 were necessary to be complied with in a case of this nature. Non-compliance wherewith would amount to malice in law (See Govt. Branch Press v. D.B Belliappa (1979) 1 SCC 477, S.R Venkataraman v. Union of India (1979) 2 SCC 491 and P. Mohanan Pillai v. State of Kerala (2007) 9 SCC 497). Thus, when an order suffers from malice in law, neither any averment as such is required to be made nor strict proof thereof is insisted upon. Such an order being illegal would be wholly unsustainable."
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 348 - S B Sinha - Full Document

State Of Gujarat vs Umedbhai M. Patel on 27 February, 2001

24. Corruption, no doubt, is a menace, eating into the vitals of our society. An employee, who is found to have indulged in such practice, has to be dealt with iron hands. Such a public servant, if found guilty, has to be punished and shown the door but not compulsorily retired allowing him to get away with all the retiral benefits. The compulsory retirement provision has been enacted to achieve a different purpose, i.e., to weed out inefficient and corrupt public servants whose continuance in service is prejudicial to public interest. This, however, has to be adjudicated upon on the basis of the work and conduct of the employee during his whole service career though attaching more importance to his work and conduct during last some years preceding his compulsory retirement. This power based on the pleasure doctrine of the sovereign should not be used for collateral purpose. The Supreme Court as well as different High Courts of the country including this Court have laid down broad principles from time to time which were summarized by the Supreme Court in the case of Umedbhai M. Patel's case (supra)."
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 276 - K G Balakrishnan - Full Document

The State Of Gujarat & Anr vs Suryakant Chunilal Shah on 3 December, 1998

16. Taking an overall view of the matter, the bottom line of the order of compulsory retirement of the respondent is his conduct and the registration of an FIR against him, in which he was ultimately acquitted. Whether the compulsory retirement of the respondent could have been directed under the facts and circumstances of the case is the moot question that requires to be determined here in this petition? The answer to this question is provided at Paragraph no. 27 of the judgment rendered in the case of "State of Gujarat v. Suryakant Chunilal Shah", reported in "1998 (9) Supreme 150" and "(1999) 1 SCC 529", which, for the convenience of ready reference, is reproduced herein below, verbatim et literatim:
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 134 - Full Document

State Of J & K vs Abdul Majid Wani on 25 February, 2015

17. The view taken by us in the preceding paragraphs is further fortified by a series of decisions of this Court rendered in various appeals involving similar questions of law and the facts as are involved here in this appeal. A cue can be had in this behalf from the law laid down in the case of State of Jammu and Kashmir Vs. Abdul Majid Wani, bearing LPASW No.95/2017, the relevant extracts of which are detailed below :-
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 10 - R Banumathi - Full Document
1   2 Next