Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 24 (0.37 seconds)
Date: Shri Moirangthem Sushil Singh vs The State Of Manipur Through The ... on 18 August, 2022 cites

Union Of India & Anr vs Ashok Kumar Aggarwal on 22 November, 2013

32. As per the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, supra, long period of suspension does not make the order of suspension invalid and even if a criminal trial or enquiry takes a long time, it is ordinarily not open to the Court to interfere in case of suspension as it is in the exclusive domain of the competent authority who can always review its order of suspension being an inherent power conferred upon them by the provisions of Article 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and while exercising such power, the authority can consider the case of an employee for revoking the suspension order, if satisfied that the criminal case pending would be concluded after an unusual delay for no fault of the employee concerned.
Supreme Court of India Cites 68 - Cited by 294 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs Union Of India Thr Its Secretary & Anr on 16 February, 2015

33. From the legal prescription propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhury v. Union of India and others, supra, it is seen that the currency WP(C) No. 226 of 2022 P a g e | 32 of a suspension order should not extend beyond three months if within this period the memorandum of charges/charge-sheet is not served on the delinquent officer/employees.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 2060 - V Sen - Full Document

Jayrajbhai Jayantibhai Patel vs Anilbhai Jayantibhai Patel And Ors on 11 September, 2006

In Jayrajbhai Jayantibhai Patel v. Anilbhai Nathubhai Patel [(2006) 8 SCC 200] this Court explained: (SCC p. 209, para 18) "18. Having regard to it all, it is manifest that the power of judicial review may not be exercised unless the administrative decision is illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or it shocks the conscience of the court in the sense that it is in defiance of logic or moral standards but no standardised formula, universally applicable to all cases, can be evolved. Each case has to be considered on its own facts, depending upon the authority that exercises the power, the source, the nature or scope of power and the indelible effects it generates in the operation of law or affects the individual or society. Though judicial restraint, albeit self-recognised, is the order of the day, yet an administrative decision or action which is based on wholly irrelevant considerations or material; or excludes from consideration the relevant material; or it is so absurd that no reasonable person could have arrived at it on the given material, may be struck down. In other words, when a court is satisfied that there is an abuse or misuse of power, and its jurisdiction is invoked, it is WP(C) No. 226 of 2022 P a g e | 14 incumbent on the court to intervene. It is nevertheless, trite that the scope of judicial review is limited to the deficiency in the decision-making process and not the decision."
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 139 - D K Jain - Full Document

Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. vs Udai Narain on 30 March, 1998

25. There cannot be any doubt that the 1965 Rules are a self-contained code and the order of suspension can be examined in the light of the statutory provisions to determine as to whether the suspension order was justified. Undoubtedly, the delinquent cannot be considered to be any better off after the charge-sheet has been filed against him in the court on conclusion of the investigation than his position during the investigation of the case itself. (Vide Union of India v. Udai Narain [(1998) 5 SCC 535 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 1418] .) WP(C) No. 226 of 2022 P a g e | 15
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 54 - S R Babu - Full Document

State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors. vs Shardul Singh on 2 December, 1969

26. The scope of interference by the Court with the order of suspension has been examined by the Court in a large number of cases, particularly in State of M.P. v. Shardul Singh [(1970) 1 SCC 108] , P.V. Srinivasa Sastry v. Comptroller & Auditor General [(1993) 1 SCC 419 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 206 : (1993) 23 ATC 645] , ESI v. T. Abdul Razak [(1996) 4 SCC 708 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 1061] , Kusheshwar Dubey v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. [(1988) 4 SCC 319 : 1988 SCC (L&S) 950] , Delhi Cloth & General Mills Ltd. v. Kushal Bhan [AIR 1960 SC 806], U.P. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad v. Sanjiv Rajan [1993 Supp (3) SCC 483 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 67 : (1993) 25 ATC 764] , State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena [(1996) 6 SCC 417 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 1455] , Prohibition and Excise Deptt.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 52 - K S Hegde - Full Document

P.V. Srinivasa Sastry And Others vs Comptroller And Auditor General And ... on 11 December, 1992

26. The scope of interference by the Court with the order of suspension has been examined by the Court in a large number of cases, particularly in State of M.P. v. Shardul Singh [(1970) 1 SCC 108] , P.V. Srinivasa Sastry v. Comptroller & Auditor General [(1993) 1 SCC 419 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 206 : (1993) 23 ATC 645] , ESI v. T. Abdul Razak [(1996) 4 SCC 708 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 1061] , Kusheshwar Dubey v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. [(1988) 4 SCC 319 : 1988 SCC (L&S) 950] , Delhi Cloth & General Mills Ltd. v. Kushal Bhan [AIR 1960 SC 806], U.P. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad v. Sanjiv Rajan [1993 Supp (3) SCC 483 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 67 : (1993) 25 ATC 764] , State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena [(1996) 6 SCC 417 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 1455] , Prohibition and Excise Deptt.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 166 - N P Singh - Full Document
1   2 3 Next