Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.32 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Avtar Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 21 July, 2016
15. On perusal of the impugned order dated 17.04.2023, it can be very
well seen that the respondent authorities have granted reasonable
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thereafter, passed a reasoned
and speaking order following directions contained in Avatar Singh (supra)
case and also gave reasons for not reinstating the petitioner and have
rejected the prayer for imposition of lesser penalty other than termination/
dismissal/removal.
Deepak Vishnoi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 August, 2023
The same
was also reiterated by this court in the case of Deepak Vishnoi Vs The
State of MP & 4 Others WP No. 20686 of 2023.
Sushil Kumar Singhal vs Regional Manager Punjab National Bank on 10 August, 2010
11. The Apex Court in the case of Sushil Kumar Singhal Vs. Regional
Manager, Punjab National Bank, 2010 (8) SCC 573, postulated the
definition of Moral Turpitude in the following words:
The State Of Rajasthan vs Love Kush Meena on 24 March, 2021
12. Further, in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Love Kush Meena,
(2021) 8 SCC 774, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that:
Commissioner Of Police And Anr vs Mehar Singh on 2 July, 2013
16. The Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Police, New Delhi
and another vs. Mehar Singh (2013) 7 SCC 685 has held that :-
Hikmat Ali Khan vs Ishwar Prasad Arya & Ors on 28 January, 1997
In
Hikmat Ali Khan (supra) and Raghvendra Kumar (supra), the Apex Court
has already held that conviction under Section 307 of IPC would amount to
moral turpitude. It is for the employer to appoint or not to appoint a person
who had committed an offence which falls within the definition of moral
turpitude. To support his contention, learned counsel for the respondents
has relied upon various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Raghvendra Kumar vs Prabal Kumar & Ors on 16 September, 2013
In
Hikmat Ali Khan (supra) and Raghvendra Kumar (supra), the Apex Court
has already held that conviction under Section 307 of IPC would amount to
moral turpitude. It is for the employer to appoint or not to appoint a person
who had committed an offence which falls within the definition of moral
turpitude. To support his contention, learned counsel for the respondents
has relied upon various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
1