Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.24 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Sukhdev Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 23 April, 2013
16. The correctness of the decision rendered in Dev
Dutt's case has been again considered in the case of
Sukhdev Singh Vs. Union of India and Others
15 W.P.No.37687/2014
reported in 2013 AIR SCW 3801.
Khazia Mohammed Muzzammil vs The State Of Karnataka, By The Chief ... on 9 July, 2004
In the case of Kazia Mohammed Muzzammil
Vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2010) 8 SCC 155,
Hon'ble Supreme Court has emphasized the need for
proper maintenance of service records of Judicial
Officers inclusive of writing of ACRs without any undue
17 W.P.No.37687/2014
delay. In the said decision it is held that non-writing of
ACRs in time would adversely affect the administration
of justice. It is held that greater stress will be laid upon
in ACRs at the time of considering the Judicial Officers
for promotion and other service related matters. The
analogy of the principles enunciated in the said decision
is equally applicable to the facts of the present case.
S.T. Ramesh vs State Of Karnataka & Anr on 20 February, 2007
The principles so
enunciated in S.T. Ramesh's case are applicable to the
facts of the present case also as there are no adverse
remarks at any point of time in the ACRs of the official
18 W.P.No.37687/2014
in question. Even according to the records, good rating
is found in the earlier ACRs of the applicant in question.
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Dev Dutt vs Union Of India & Ors on 12 May, 2008
20. Keeping the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Dev Dutt's case which is
reiterated by a Bench consisting of three Hon'ble Judges
of the same Court, the ACRs of the applicant in
question for the above period should have been
communicated without any delay. Furnishing of such
ACRs after a lapse of 8-9 years and that too after three
years after his retirement cannot be countenanced as
either legal or proper. This important aspect has been
taken into consideration by the Tribunal while
considering the case of the applicant by the Tribunal.
Section 19 in The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar vs Union Of India & Ors on 22 October, 2008
14. The decision rendered in the case of Dev Dutt's
case has been followed subsequently by a bench
consisting of three Hon'ble Judges of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar Vs. Union
14 W.P.No.37687/2014
of India And Others reported in (2009) 16 SCC 146. It
is reiterated that non-communication of entries in ACRs
of a public servant (except in the armed forces) has civil
consequences as it may affect his promotion or other
benefits. It is further reiterated that non-communication
is therefore arbitrary and as such violative of an Article
1