Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.37 seconds)

Sh. Ranbir Singh vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 30 June, 2009

In view of my aforesaid discussion I hereby hold that the plaintiff is not entitled to the damages/ compensation of any counts except on the account of loss of pay and 50 allowance for the promotional post of Sub Inspector for the period 29.6.2005 to 26.9.2006 in terms of the directions of the Ld. Central Administrative Tribunal in OA no. 2299/05 under Ranbir Singh Vs. Govt of NCT of Delhi'.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 1 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Sh. Rajesh Chaudhary vs Nirmala Chaudhary on 9 November, 2005

After reaching near the office of the Sub Inspector, Sh. V.K. Chaudhary and independent witnesses Sh. Mange Ram were directed by the trap laying officer to proceed in front of the office of the Sub Inspector and call up the plaintiff requesting him to meet in front of his office. The plaintiff insisted on his coming inside his office but Sh. V.K. Chaudhary showed his 17 unwillingness to go inside the office and the matter was deferred for a day or two. It is stated that Sh. V.K. Chaudhary produced the recorded conversation to CBI Office and the CFSL confirmed the voice of Sub Inspector Ranbir Singh plaintiff in the recorded conversation. Sh. V. K. Chaudhary was finally arrested by him when he got suspicious about Sh. V.K. Chaudhary and it was alleged that the plaintiff was trying to obtain the illegal gratification of Rs.1.20 lakhs from Sh. V.K. Chaudhary for not arresting him in the said case and he did not arrest Sh. V.K. Chaudhary on 9.03.2004 when there were grounds and no fresh grounds emerged after that.
Delhi High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 18 - M Mudgal - Full Document
1