Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.30 seconds)Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Delhi Administration Through Its Chief ... vs Sushil Kumar on 4 October, 1996
In the light of the judgments referred to aforesaid, the judgment in the case of Commissioner of Police and others Versus Sandeep Kumar (supra) cannot be applied to this case as earlier judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court were not considered therein and otherwise even on facts, it is distinguishable.
Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Ors vs Ram Ratan Yadav on 26 February, 2003
In our view, the appellant was justified in relying upon the ratio of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (supra) and contending that a person who indulges in such suppresso veri and suggestio falsi and obtains employment by false pretence does not deserve any public employment. We completely endorse this view.
Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
A.P. Public Service Commission vs Koneti Venkateswarulu & Ors on 30 August, 2005
7. It has also been pleaded that though the respondent had been exonerated in both the prosecutions, but the misconduct alleged was of the incorrect filling of the attestation form and not of being involved in a criminal case and as such, the mere fact that he had been exonerated would have no effect on the merits of the controversy. The learned counsel has accordingly placed reliance on Rules 57 and 67 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 (hereinafter called 'the Rules') as also several judgment of this Court, namely, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Ram Ratan Yadav, A.P. Public Service Commission v. Konete Venkateswarulu and State of Haryan v. Satyender Singh Rathore. The learned counsel for the respondent has however supported the judgments of the courts below and has pointed out that as the appellants had not put the copy of the attestation form on record, it was not possible to verify the correct facts and that in any case, the impugned order dated 15.7.1995 being stigmatic, could not be sustained.
1