Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 64 (0.65 seconds)
Raj Kapoor vs Allahabad Bank Kolkata Throu Its ... on 11 September, 2017 cites

State Of Mysore vs K. Manche Gowda on 22 August, 1963

In support of his submission learned counsel for the respondent has invited our attention to the judgment of this Court titled State of Mysore v. K. Manche Gowda [AIR 1964 SC 506 : (1964) 4 SCR 540] but in the present case we are satisfied that in fact the respondent deliberately absented himself from duty and did not offer any explanation for his absence from election duty. It is not the respondent's first absence. He also absented himself from duty on earlier occasions also. In our opinion there can be no hard-and-fast rule that merely because the earlier misconduct has not been mentioned in the charge-sheet it cannot be taken into consideration by the punishing authority. Consideration of the earlier misconduct is often only to reinforce the opinion of the said authority. The police force is a disciplined force and if the respondent is a habitual absentee then there is no reason to ignore this fact at the time of imposing penalty. Moreover, even ignoring the earlier absence, in our opinion, the absence of 21 days by a member of a disciplined force is sufficient to justify his compulsory retirement.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 162 - Full Document

State Of Andhra Pradesh vs S. Sree Rama Rao on 10 April, 1963

This Court in State of A.P. v. S. Sree Rama Rao [AIR 1963 SC 1723] held: (AIR pp. 1726-27, para 7) "7. ... Where there is some evidence, which the authority entrusted with the duty to hold the enquiry has accepted and which evidence may reasonably support the conclusion that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge, it is not the function of the High Court in a petition for a writ under Article 226 to review the evidence and to arrive at an independent finding on the evidence especially when the charged officer had not participated in the inquiry and had not raised the grounds urged by him before the High Court by the inquiring authority."
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 744 - J C Shah - Full Document

Air India vs Cochin International Airport Ltd on 31 January, 2000

This has already been discussed threadbare in several decisions of this Court, including in Sterling Computers Ltd. v. M & N Publications Ltd. [(1993) 1 SCC 445] , Tata Cellular v. Union of India [(1994) 6 SCC 651] , Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport Ltd. [(2000) 2 SCC 617] , B.S.N. Joshi & Sons Ltd. v. Nair Coal Services Ltd. [(2006) 11 SCC 548] and Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa [(2007) 14 SCC 517] .
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 340 - G T Nanavati - Full Document

Mr. B.S.N. Joshi & Sons Ltd vs Nair Coal Services Ltd. & Ors on 31 October, 2006

This has already been discussed threadbare in several decisions of this Court, including in Sterling Computers Ltd. v. M & N Publications Ltd. [(1993) 1 SCC 445] , Tata Cellular v. Union of India [(1994) 6 SCC 651] , Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport Ltd. [(2000) 2 SCC 617] , B.S.N. Joshi & Sons Ltd. v. Nair Coal Services Ltd. [(2006) 11 SCC 548] and Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa [(2007) 14 SCC 517] .
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 458 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 Next