Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.32 seconds)The Special Director And Anr vs Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse And Anr on 9 January, 2004
Commr., Mysore & Ors., AIR 2000
SC 3603 (2); Special Director & Anr. v. Mohd. Ghulam
Ghouse & Anr., AIR 2004 SC 1467; and Union of India &
Anr. v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, AIR 2007 SC 906).
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Brahma Datt Sharma And Anr on 25 February, 1987
It does not amount to an adverse order which affects the
right of any party unless the same has been issued by a
person having no jurisdiction/competence to do so. A
writ lies when some right of a party is infringed. In fact,
charge sheet does not infringe the right of a party. It is
only when a final order imposing the punishment or
otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, it may
have a grievance and cause of action. Thus, a
chargesheet or show cause notice in disciplinary
proceedings should not ordinarily be quashed by the
Court. (Vide : State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma, AIR
1987 SC 943; Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing
Board v. Ramesh Kumar Singh & Ors., (1996) 1 SCC 327;
Ulagappa & Ors. v. Div.
State Of Orissa & Anr vs Sangram Keshari Misra & Anr on 19 October, 2010
In State of Orissa & Anr. v. Sangram Keshari
Misra & Anr., (2010) 13 SCC 311, this Court held that
normally a chargesheet is not quashed prior to the
conclusion of the enquiry on the ground that the facts
stated in the charge are erroneous for the reason that
correctness or truth of the charge is the function of the
disciplinary authority.
Chameli Singh And Others Etc. vs State Of U.P. And Another on 15 December, 1995
In Chameli Singh v.
State of U.P., (1996) 2 SCC 549, the Supreme Court reiterated this
obligation in the following words:
Navtej Singh Johar vs Union Of India Ministry Of Law And ... on 6 September, 2018
28.In the context of a meaningful enjoyment of the right to
health in Navtej Singh Johar, supra, Chandrachud, J pointed out that
the brooding omnipresence of Article 21 was not merely confined to
imposing negative obligations on the State. The Court went on to
observe as under:
Pt. Parmanand Katara vs Union Of India & Ors on 28 August, 1989
29.In Parmanand Katara v. Union of India, (1989) 4 SCC 286,
the Supreme Court was petitioned, under Article 32 of the
Constitution, for a direction that every injured citizen brought to a
hospital was entitled for medical aid and for all such measures as may
be necessary to preserve life. In an oft-quoted passage, Ranganath
Misra, J reminded doctors of their “total and paramount” obligation
consistent with their Hippocratic oath to preserve life. The Court said
“8. Article 21 of the Constitution casts the obligation on
the State to preserve life. The provision as explained by
this Court in scores of decisions has emphasised and
http://www.judis.nic.in
48/72
reiterated with gradually increasing emphasis that
position. A doctor at the government hospital positioned
to meet this State obligation is, therefore, duty bound
to extend medical assistance for preserving life. Every
doctor whether at a government hospital or otherwise
has the professional obligation to extend his services
with due expertise for protecting life. No law or State
action can intervene to avoid/delay the discharge of
the paramount obligation cast upon members of the
medical profession. The obligation being total, absolute
and paramount, laws of procedure whether in statutes
or otherwise which would interfere with the discharge of
this obligation cannot be sustained and must, therefore,
give way.”
Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoorsamity Of Ors vs State Of West Bengal & Anr on 6 May, 1996
30.In Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of W.B.,
(1996) 4 SCC 37, the Supreme Court reiterated this responsibility in
equally emphatic terms. The Court observed thus:
T.K. Rangarajan vs Government Of Tamil Nadu & Others on 6 August, 2003
32.It is too late in the day to contend that an employee has a
fundamental right to go on strike. The law was settled by the
Supreme Court in T.K. Rangarajan v. Govt. of T.N., (2003) 6 SCC
581 wherein it was unambiguously held that no employee has a
fundamental right to go on strike. In fact, the Supreme Court went a
http://www.judis.nic.in
50/72
step further and opined that not only was there no legal right to go
on a strike but there was no moral or equitable justification that
could legitimize such actions. In an instructive passage the Supreme
Court took note of the plight of innocent patients who suffer on
account of a strike by doctors. The Court held as under: