Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.38 seconds)
Vijayshanker vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 29 July, 2005 cites

U.P. Jal Nigam & Others vs Prabhat Chandra Jain & Others on 31 January, 1996

She has also submitted that the ratio of the judgment in the case of U.P. Jal Nigam v. Prabhat Chandra Jainas well as other judgments cited by Mr. Pathak, learned Counsel for the applicant has no application to the facts of the instant case. The DPC is required to follow the DOPT' s guidelines and as per the guidelines, only adverse remarks were required to be communicated to the officer concerned. Since there were no adverse remarks in the ACR of the applicant, the same were not communicated to him. The DPC was however, fully justified in assessing the applicant on the basis of the ACRs of the last five years which disentitled him for further promotions.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 245 - M M Punchhi - Full Document

Manick Chand Paul & Others Etc vs Union Of India And Others on 17 April, 1984

11. This decision of the Supreme Court has subsequently been followed in many cases by different High Courts and the Tribunal. Mrs. Bhatt, learned Counsel for the respondents relaying on a Full Bench decision of this Tribunal at Mumbai in the case of Manik Chand v. Union of India and Ors. have vehemently submitted that the Full Bench has ruled that it is not necessary to communicate the remarks which are below the benchmark prescribed for promotion in respect of a selection post. According to her, in view of this Full Bench decision the downgrading in the ACRs of the applicant were not required to be communicated to him and the DPC was justified in taking into consideration those remarks also.
Supreme Court of India Cites 36 - Cited by 41 - V D Tulzapurkar - Full Document

Gurdial Singh Fijji vs State Of Punjab & Others on 9 March, 1979

9. Again thereafter in the case of Gurdial Singh Fijji v. State of Punjab and Ors. , the Supreme Court laid down that the principle is well settled that in accordance with the rules of natural justice, an adverse report in a confidential roll cannot be acted upon to deny promotional opportunities unless it is communicated to the person concerned so that he has an opportunity to improve his work and conduct or to explain the circumstances leading to the report. Such an opportunity is not an empty formality its object, partially, being to enable the superior authorities to decide on a consideration of the explanation offered by the person concerned, whether the adverse report is justified.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 302 - Y V Chandrachud - Full Document

State Of U.P vs Yamuna Shanker Misra & Anr on 21 February, 1997

The same view was expressed in the case of State of U.P. v. Yamuna Shanker Misra and Anr. 1997 SCC (L & S) 903 : 1997(2) SLJ 121 (SC) observing that Article 51-A (j) enjoins upon every citizen the primary duty to constantly endeavour to prove excellence, individually and collectively, as a member of the group. Given an opportunity, the individual employee strives to improve excellence and thereby efficiency of administration would be augmented. The Officer entrusted with the duty to write confidential reports has a public responsibility and trust to write the confidential reports objectively, fairly accurately as possible, the statement of facts on overall assessment of the performance of the subordinate officer.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 247 - Full Document

(Smt.) Smita Pandurang Dalvi, Of Bombay ... vs Ratnakar Dattatraya Patade, Of Bombay, ... on 26 February, 2002

14. Another Full Bench of this Tribunal in the case of A.K. Dawar v. Union of India O.A. 555/2001 in the Principal Bench, while considering all the previous judgments of the Tribunal as well as High Courts and the Supreme Court has opined that downgrading in the ACR requires to be communicated to the concerned officer. It however laid down that in case there is no down grading of the concerned persons in the annual confidential report the grading of 'good' given to the Govt. employee irrespective of the benchmark for the next promotion being 'very good' need not be communicated or to be treated as adverse.
Bombay High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 1259 - C K Thakker - Full Document
1