Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.30 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Bhagat Ram vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Ors. on 24 January, 1983
7. He submitted that the Tribunal has erred in holding that it is not inclined to interfere with the decision of both the respondents so far as misconduct is concerned. He relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rama Kant Misra v. State of U.P. and Ors., reported in AIR 1982 SC 1552 and also the decision in the case of Bhagat Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., (supra) in which at para 15 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed thus :
Rama Kant Misra vs State Of U.P. And Others on 21 October, 1982
10. Mr. Mehta, learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rama Kant Misra v. State of U. P. and Ors., reported in AIR 1982 SC 1552 in which on page 1554 at para 7 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under :-
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
B.C. Chaturvedi vs Union Of India And Ors on 1 November, 1995
11.2 He has also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B. C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India and Ors., reported in 1995 (6) SCC 749 in which on page 762 at para 18, it is held thus :
Dalal Project Services Pvt. Ltd. vs Akaram Shankar Chaukekar And Anr. on 18 February, 1998
11.3 The learned Counsel for the petitioner has also relied on the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Dalai Project Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Akaram Shankar Chaukekar and Anr., reported in 1999 (1) LLJ 48. He submitted that the subject-matter of clause is misconduct of minor or technical character and the authority ought not to have imposed major punishment of dismissal from service in this behalf.
Rai Bareli Kshetriya Gramin Bank vs Bhola Nath Singh & Ors on 28 February, 1997
There is no violation of principle of natural justice. The Inquiry Officer as well as the Tribunal has considered all material in this behalf. The charges levelled against the petitioner are very serious charges. The appellate authority as well as the Tribunal has given cogent and convincing reasons, and therefore, this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution has a very limited jurisdiction in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rae Bareli Kshetriya Gramin Bank (supra), Om Kumar and Ors., (supra).
Om Kumar And Ors vs Union Of India on 17 November, 2000
There is no violation of principle of natural justice. The Inquiry Officer as well as the Tribunal has considered all material in this behalf. The charges levelled against the petitioner are very serious charges. The appellate authority as well as the Tribunal has given cogent and convincing reasons, and therefore, this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution has a very limited jurisdiction in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rae Bareli Kshetriya Gramin Bank (supra), Om Kumar and Ors., (supra).
Ram Kishan vs Union Of India & Ors on 1 September, 1995
11. The learned Counsel has further relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Kishan v. Union of India and Ors., reported in 1996 (1) LLJ 982 in which on page 985 at para 11 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed thus :