Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 34 (0.24 seconds)State Of U.P vs Ram Chandra Trivedi on 1 September, 1976
28. It Would thus he seen that on a careful consideration and a comprehensive survey of almost all the relevant judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on this point, including Ram Cnandra's case(Supra) the view taken was, that it the very foundation of the order of reversion or termination of service is the misconduct or negligence; then Article 311 Clause (2) of the Constitution is attracted. But if the misconduct or negligence is mere motive and not the foundation then Article 311 Clause (2) will have no application
State Of Punjab & Anr vs Shri Sukh Raj Bahadur on 22 February, 1968
52. 'Integrity' 'is shown as 'very. Much doubtful" in noting no. 4 at page 74 of the paper book reproduced from part 11 of his confidential report (paras nos. 4) & in para 5 "integrity as 'doubtful' (para 74 of the paper book). As already mentioned above, in para 6 it was clearly mentioned that above reports call for consideration about his reduction to the lower grade of S.I. Grade 250-380 from 335 425. The following test is laid down in Sukh Raj Bahadur's case (supra): "The circumstances preceding or attendant on the order of termination of service", which in the present case would be reversion from the post, have to be examined in each case, the motive behind it being immaterial.
State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Sughar Singh And Ors. on 8 December, 1977
49. It would thus be seen that where as in State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. v. Sughar Singh's case (supra), an order of reversion was precisely quashed on the ground that it was based on adverse entry in his confidential character roll, in the other cases mentioned above, it was held that the form of the order is not conclusive of its true nature and the entirety of the circumstances preceding or attendant on the impugned order must be examined by she court and the over riding test will always be whether the misconduct is a mere motive or is the foundation of the order.
State Of Maharashtra vs Veerappa R. Saboji And Anr on 6 September, 1979
47. It is neither proper nor permissible for this Court to enter into the arena of controversy to the interpretation of the various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as high lightened by the above judgment of State of Maharashtra v. Veerappa R. Sabaji and Anr.
R. S. Sial vs The State Of U.P. & Ors on 25 March, 1974
State Of Bihar & Ors vs Shiva Bhikshuk Mishra on 14 September, 1970
Taking the above as the principles of guidance, there is no doubt that from judgment in para 16 after considering Dhingra's case, Champaklal Chimanlal Shah's case and Shri Sukh Raj Bahadur's case, Shiv Bhikshuk Mishra's case and Sial's case, the court has made the following deductions:
The State Of Orissa And Another vs Ram Narayan Das on 8 September, 1960
AIR 1960 SC Gopi Kishore Prasad v. Union of India 8 (1961)1 SCR 606 The State of Orissa and Ors. v. Ram Narayan Das 9.
Parshotam Lal Dhingra vs Union Of India on 1 November, 1957
Taking the above as the principles of guidance, there is no doubt that from judgment in para 16 after considering Dhingra's case, Champaklal Chimanlal Shah's case and Shri Sukh Raj Bahadur's case, Shiv Bhikshuk Mishra's case and Sial's case, the court has made the following deductions: