Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.62 seconds)
Shyam Narayan Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 October, 2016 cites

Yoginath D. Bagde vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 16 September, 1999

As per Rule 14 of the CCA Rules, major punishment can be imposed upon an employee only when full fleged inquiry is being conducted. In the present case, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that said course was not open to the petitioner because such inquiry is already pending and no final decision is taken by the disciplinary authority on the report of inquiry officer dated 04/06/2010. Lastly, it is submitted that decision making process by the respondents is contrary to law and against the settled legal position. Reliance is placed on AIR (1999) 7 SCC 739 (Yoginth D Bagde Vs. State of Maharashtra) it is urged that the impugned show-cause notice amounts to giving post decisional hearing to the petitioner. The respondents on the basis of ex parte report have already taken a decision to dismiss the services of the petitioner. This course is totally unknown to law.
Supreme Court of India Cites 35 - Cited by 505 - S S Ahmad - Full Document

Ram Sarup vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 3 May, 1984

Reliance is placed on AIR 1978 SC 1536 (Ram Sarup Vs. The State of Haryana), AIR 1990 SC 857 (JC Yadav & ors Vs. State of Haryana, 1991 Supp (2) SCC 421 (H.C. Putt Swamy & ors Vs. Hon'ble Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court of Bangalore; and AIR 2001 SC 1176 (Buddhinath Chaudhary & ors Vs. Abhikumar & ors) in support of the contention that appointment without requisite experience is permissible.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 104 - Y V Chandrachud - Full Document

The Secretary, Min.Of Defence & Ors vs Prabhash Chandra Mirdha on 30 April, 2007

4. Shri S Chatterjee, learned Panel Lawyer opposed the relief on the basis of averments of the return. He contended that writ against the show-cause notice is not maintainable. Reliance is placed on (2012) 11 SCC 565 (Secretary Ministry of Defence Vs. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha) He further stated that the show-cause notice is issued in consonance with the directions issued by this Court in the aforesaid writ appeal. The petitioner can very well file detailed reply and putforth his defence. Reliance is also placed on averments of additional return and it is contended that issue relating to experience was duly considered by duly constituted four member committee. The said committee gave its findings, which were supplied to the petitioner along with the show-cause notice. It is open to the petitioner to putforth his defence in detail, which will be considered by the competent authority. At this stage, no interference is warranted. Parties confined their arguments to the extent indicated herein above.
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 365 - Full Document

Sri Baru Ram vs Shrimati Prasanni & Others on 30 September, 1958

Rule 14 of CCA Rules is the codification of principles of natural justice in the form of a Statute. This is trite law that if law prescribes that a thing should be done in a particular manner, it has to be done in the same manner or not at all. The other methods are forbidden. ( See: AIR 1959 SC 93 (Shri Baru Ram Vs. Smt. Prasanni and others), 2002 (1) SCC 633 ( Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai Vs. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala and Others), 2011 (2) MPLJ 690 (Satyanjay Tripathi & Anr. Vs. Banarasi Devi).
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 83 - P B Gajendragadkar - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax,Mumbai vs Anjum M.H.Ghaswala & Ors on 18 October, 2001

Rule 14 of CCA Rules is the codification of principles of natural justice in the form of a Statute. This is trite law that if law prescribes that a thing should be done in a particular manner, it has to be done in the same manner or not at all. The other methods are forbidden. ( See: AIR 1959 SC 93 (Shri Baru Ram Vs. Smt. Prasanni and others), 2002 (1) SCC 633 ( Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai Vs. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala and Others), 2011 (2) MPLJ 690 (Satyanjay Tripathi & Anr. Vs. Banarasi Devi).
Supreme Court of India Cites 44 - Cited by 678 - Full Document
1