Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.32 seconds)
Krishan Gurjar vs Union Of India And Ors. on 15 November, 2017 cites

Nidhi Kaim vs State Of M P And Ors Etc on 12 May, 2016

23. There is no dispute that the respondents have themselves decided to issue two show cause notices to the petitioner. In other words, it is not the case of the respondents that issuance of show cause notice has been dispensed with. Having issued the same, it was required for the respondents to give all the material to the petitioner on which reliance was placed by them to prove that the petitioner was involved in malpractices. As a limited issue of show cause concerns us in this case, we are of the view that the judgment of the Supreme Court in Nidhi Kaim (supra) shall not help the respondents.
Supreme Court of India Cites 58 - Cited by 20 - Full Document

Staff Selection Commission & Anr. vs Sudesh on 19 December, 2014

20. That apart, on a specific query to Mr. Gogna that the Supreme Court has dismissed the SLPs filed by the Staff Selection Commission challenging the order dated December 19, 2014 of the High Court in W.P.(C) No. 9055/2014 in Civil Appeal No. 2836- 2838/2017 in the case of Staff Selection Commission v. Sudesh (supra), the only answer given by him is that the same was without any reasons. We are unable to accept the said submission for the simple reason that the High Court, despite the fact that the respondent therein namely Sudesh was issued a show cause notice with better particulars than this case, still held the show cause notice issued to Sudesh was without fulfilling the basic requirement of principles of Natural Justice and upheld the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, which quashed the second show cause notice dated January 28, 2014 issued to Sudesh, which judgment has been upheld by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 2836- W.P.(C) No. 8896/2015 Page 14 of 20 2838/2017 and the review petition thereof on July 19, 2017 was also dismissed on October 31, 2017. If that be so, in the case in hand the show cause notices being bereft of any material/evidence to enable the petitioner to give an appropriate reply, the consequential action thereof cannot be sustained.
Delhi High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 12 - V Sanghi - Full Document

Nidhi Kaim & Anr vs State Of M P And Ors Etc on 13 February, 2017

Insofar as the judgment of the Supreme Court in Nidhi Kaim v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others (supra) on which reliance has been placed by Mr. Gogna is concerned, the Supreme Court was concerned with facts where entrance examination for admissions into medical colleges for the year 2013 was conducted by the Board on July 07, 2013. On the same day, an FIR was registered alleging commission of various offences pursuant to a large scale conspiracy in the context of the examination. The FIR was registered against several persons including students and some employees of the Board. The Chairman of the Board also caused some enquiry into the allegations by orders dated October 09, 2013 and December 06, 2013. The Board cancelled the results of 345 and 70 candidates respectively. As a consequence, admissions granted to the said students in various medical colleges stood cancelled.
Supreme Court of India Cites 41 - Cited by 96 - J S Khehar - Full Document
1