Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.27 seconds)State Of Andhra Pradesh vs N. Radhakishan on 7 April, 1998
SCC 738 as also in the case of
State of Andhra Pradesh vs. N. Radhakishan, reported in
(1998) 4 SCC 154; P.V. Mahadevan vs. Md. T.N. Housing
Board reported in (2005) 6 SCC 636 and the judgment dated
30.05.2019 passed by this Court in the case of Laxman Ram
Panwar vs. The State of Rajasthan & ors. (S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No. 7328/2016), which was affirmed by the Division
Bench vide order dated 22.02.2022.
P.V. Mahadevan vs M.D. Tamil Nadu Housing Board on 8 August, 2005
SCC 738 as also in the case of
State of Andhra Pradesh vs. N. Radhakishan, reported in
(1998) 4 SCC 154; P.V. Mahadevan vs. Md. T.N. Housing
Board reported in (2005) 6 SCC 636 and the judgment dated
30.05.2019 passed by this Court in the case of Laxman Ram
Panwar vs. The State of Rajasthan & ors. (S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No. 7328/2016), which was affirmed by the Division
Bench vide order dated 22.02.2022.
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Bani Singh And Another on 5 April, 1990
In support of his argument, that the disciplinary proceedings
can be quashed on the ground of delay, Mr. Bhandari, learned
Senior Counsel relied upon judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme
Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Bani Singh &
Anr., reported in 1990 (Supp.)
Union Of India And Another vs Kunisetty Satyanarayana on 22 November, 2006
Reliance was
also placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in
the case of Union of India (UOI) & Ors. vs. Kunisetty
Satyanarayana reported in (2006) 12 SCC 28, to assert that the
Court should not ordinarily interfere in the disciplinary proceedings
initiated against an employee.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Secretary, Min.Of Defence & Ors vs Prabhash Chandra Mirdha on 30 April, 2007
In support of her contention that the proceedings in question
cannot be quashed on the ground of delay, learned counsel relied
upon judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court dated
16.03.1998 in the case of Bajinder Kumar Chopra vs. The
Food Corporation of India reported in 1998 (3) SCT 517 and
also the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of
The Secretary, Ministry of Defence & Ors. vs. Prabhash
Chandra Mirdha reported in (2012) 11 SCC 565.
Laxman Ram Panwar vs State Of Rajasthan on 2 July, 2021
SCC 738 as also in the case of
State of Andhra Pradesh vs. N. Radhakishan, reported in
(1998) 4 SCC 154; P.V. Mahadevan vs. Md. T.N. Housing
Board reported in (2005) 6 SCC 636 and the judgment dated
30.05.2019 passed by this Court in the case of Laxman Ram
Panwar vs. The State of Rajasthan & ors. (S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No. 7328/2016), which was affirmed by the Division
Bench vide order dated 22.02.2022.
Mr.Ashwani Kumar Chopra vs Food Corporation Of India on 11 March, 2013
In support of her contention that the proceedings in question
cannot be quashed on the ground of delay, learned counsel relied
upon judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court dated
16.03.1998 in the case of Bajinder Kumar Chopra vs. The
Food Corporation of India reported in 1998 (3) SCT 517 and
also the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of
The Secretary, Ministry of Defence & Ors. vs. Prabhash
Chandra Mirdha reported in (2012) 11 SCC 565.
1