Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 21 (0.91 seconds)
Dr. Durga Sharan Chandra vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 28 November, 2023 cites

Union Of India & Ors vs B.V.Gopinath on 5 September, 2013

12. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners' service are governed by the Statute 28 of the College Code which has statutory force having been framed under the C. G. Vishvidyalaya Adhiniyum 1973. To substantiate this submission he has referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of "Prabhakar Ramakrishna Jodh -vs- A.L. Pande & other " : 1965 (2) SCR 713 and would submit that since the respondents have violated the statutory provisions of the Statute 28 which provides procedure for conducting enquiry, thus the enquiry is Page 7 of 18 bad in law and has been conducted in violation of Principle of Natural Justice also as such writ petition is maintainable before this Court. It has also been contended that the punishment order has been issued by incompetent person as the appointing authority for the petitioners would be governing body. To substantiate this submission they have referred to Rule 8(1)(d) and 30(1) of the Statute 28 and the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India vs. V. V. Gopinath {AIR 2014 SC 88}, State of U.P. vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha {2010 (2) SCC 772}, State of Uttarnchal and Others vs. Kharak Singh {2008 (8) SCC 236} and judgment of Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in case of Gupteshwar Prasad Sinha vs. State of M.P. {M.C.C. No. 36/2005 dated 04-09- 2014}. It has also been contended that the termination order has been imposed without approval of Executive Council of the University which is also violation of Section 31 (3) of the Statue
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 278 - M Y Eqbal - Full Document

State Of U.P. & Ors vs Saroj Kumar Sinha on 2 February, 2010

Thus, while it can be said that this Court has recognised some exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy i.e. where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question, or in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure, or has resorted to invoke the provisions which are repealed, or when an order has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice, the proposition laid down in Thansingh Nathmal case AIR 1964 SC 1419, Titaghur Paper Mills case (1983) 2 SCC 433 , 1983 SCC (Tax) 131 and other similar judgments that the High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the statute under which the action complained of has been taken itself contains a mechanism for redressal of grievance still holds the field. Therefore, when a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation."
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 718 - S S Nijjar - Full Document

St. Marys Education Society vs Rajendra Prasad Bhargava on 24 August, 2022

-28. Thus, the termination is void-ab-initio and the submission raised by the respondents that the petitioners have alternate remedy of filing appeal also deserves to be rejected. The learned counsel for the petitioners to substantiate this submission has referred to paragraph 69 of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of St. Mary's Education Society and Others vs. Rajendra Prasad Bhargav and Others {AIR Online 2022 SC 1324} and would pray for allowing the writ petitions.
Supreme Court of India Cites 39 - Cited by 84 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next