Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (6.84 seconds)
The State Of Bihar And Ors vs Baleshwar Prasad Singh on 12 July, 2019 cites

(Shri) Bhagwan Singh And Ors. vs The State Of Bihar on 13 May, 1993

05. Two writ petitions were filed CWJC No. 8942 of 2001 (Sri Bhagwan Singh vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) and CWJC No. 10212 of 2001 (Kashinath Singh vs. The State of Patna High Court L.P.A No.109 of 2018 dt.12-07-2019 26/49 Bihar & Ors.) wherein allegations had been made of irregularities and manipulation in the selections and appointments presently involved. A learned Single Judge on 24.08.2011 passed the following order for conducting a vigilance inquiry:-
Patna High Court Cites 50 - Cited by 63 - Full Document

Purtabpore Co. Ltd vs Cane Commissioner Of Bihar & Ors on 21 November, 1968

(ii) The order of the Principal Secretary, Education Department, as contained in his letter dated 19.12.2014 addressed to the Regional Deputy Director of Education when it directs him to initiate action for termination of the services of the teachers by following the procedure provided under 'the Disciplinary Rules', leaves no discretion at the hands of the Regional Deputy Director of Education to examine the merits of the claim. The direction is in the teeth of the judicial pronouncement of the Supreme Court rendered in Patna High Court L.P.A No.109 of 2018 dt.12-07-2019 35/49 the case of Purtappur Sugar Comp. Ltd. v. Cane Commissioner of Bihar & ors., since reported in AIR 1970 SC 1896.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 171 - K S Hegde - Full Document

Lav Nigam vs Chairman And Managing Director, Iti ... on 17 March, 2004

petitioners that almost 30 years have passed by and some of the teachers are now about to complete their career, in such circumstances, this Court should not interfere with the orders of the learned Single Judge and they should be allowed to continue in the service. It is their contention that the proceedings were not in accordance with the directions contained in the judgment dated 25.07.2012. Learned counsel for the respondent-petitioners have relied on Rule 17 (23)(ii) and Rule 18(2) of the CCA Rule, 2005 to contend that no reason for disagreement with the findings arrived at by the Vigilance Department and the Three Member Committee has been recorded. To support the submission, reliance has been placed on Paragraphs 10, 13 and 14 of the judgment in the case Patna High Court L.P.A No.109 of 2018 dt.12-07-2019 43/49 of Lav Nigam vs. Chairman & MD, ITI Ltd. and Anr.
Allahabad High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 167 - Y Singh - Full Document

State Bank Of India And Others vs D.C. Aggarwal And Another on 13 October, 1992

reported in (2006) 9 SCC 440. The non-supply of relevant documents and also the inquiry report has also been asserted for which reliance is placed on the judgments in the case of State Bank of India and Ors. vs. D.C. Aggarwal and Anr. reported in (1993) 1 SCC 13, Syed Rahimuddin vs. Director General, CSIR and Ors. reported in (2001) 9 SCC 575 Paragraph 3 and Govt. of A.P. And Ors. vs. A. Venkata Raidu reported in (2007) 1 SCC 338 Paragraph 9.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 192 - R M Sahai - Full Document

The Government Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors vs A. Venkata Rayudu on 31 October, 2006

reported in (2006) 9 SCC 440. The non-supply of relevant documents and also the inquiry report has also been asserted for which reliance is placed on the judgments in the case of State Bank of India and Ors. vs. D.C. Aggarwal and Anr. reported in (1993) 1 SCC 13, Syed Rahimuddin vs. Director General, CSIR and Ors. reported in (2001) 9 SCC 575 Paragraph 3 and Govt. of A.P. And Ors. vs. A. Venkata Raidu reported in (2007) 1 SCC 338 Paragraph 9.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 108 - M Katju - Full Document
1