Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (1.85 seconds)
S.Subramanian vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 10 September, 2012 cites

Union Of India & Ors vs Gyan Chand Chattar on 28 May, 2009

50.After considering the decisions in Surath Chandra Chakrabarty Vs.State of West Bengal reported in AIR 1971 SC 752, and in U nion of India & Ors. v. Gyan Chand Chattar reported in (2009) 12 SCC 78, the Apex Court allowed the appeals and set aside the order of the Division Bench and restored the order of the Hon'ble single Judge. Considering the facts and circumstances, the directions issued by the Hon'ble single Judge to pay Rs.1.5 lakhs to the appellant as compensation in lieu of arrears of salary and backwages to the official has been set aside.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 229 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

Union Of India And Another vs Kunisetty Satyanarayana on 22 November, 2006

37.On the contention that the charge is vague not specific as to from whom and on what dates, the alleged bribe had been received over a period between August 2006 and October 2007 and therefore, the charge memorandum has to be quashed at the threshold, this Court is of the view that the charge memorandum could be set aside only in rare and exceptional cases as held in Union of India and another Vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana reported in (2006) 12 SCC 28. In the above reported judgment, the Supreme Court at paragraphs 13 to 16 has held as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 1144 - M Katju - Full Document

The Special Director And Anr vs Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse And Anr on 9 January, 2004

"13.It is well settled by a series of decisions of this Court that ordinarily no writ lies against a charge sheet or show-cause notice vide Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board vs. Ramdesh Kumar Singh and others JT 1995 (8) SC 331, Special Director and another vs. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and another AIR 2004 SC 1467, Ulagappa and others vs. Divisional Commissioner, Mysore and others 2001(10) SCC 639, State of U.P. vs. Brahm Datt Sharma and another AIR 1987 SC 943 etc.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 952 - A Pasayat - Full Document

State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Brahma Datt Sharma And Anr on 25 February, 1987

"13.It is well settled by a series of decisions of this Court that ordinarily no writ lies against a charge sheet or show-cause notice vide Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board vs. Ramdesh Kumar Singh and others JT 1995 (8) SC 331, Special Director and another vs. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and another AIR 2004 SC 1467, Ulagappa and others vs. Divisional Commissioner, Mysore and others 2001(10) SCC 639, State of U.P. vs. Brahm Datt Sharma and another AIR 1987 SC 943 etc.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 967 - K N Singh - Full Document

Rustom & Hornsby (1) Ltd vs T. B. Kadam on 24 July, 1975

"25. Similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Ruston & another; Hornsby (I) Ltd. v. T.B. Kadam, AIR 1975 SC 2025; U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Basudeo Chaudhary & Anr., (1997) 11 SCC 370; Janatha Bazar South Kanara Central Cooperative Wholesale Stores Ltd. & Ors. v. Secreatry, Sahakari Noukarar Sangha and Ors. (2000) 7 SCC 517; Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. B.S. Hullikatty, AIR 2001 SC 930; Regional Manager, R.S.R.T.C. v. Ghanshyam Sharma, (2002) 10 SCC 330; Divisional Controller N.E.K.R.T.C. v. H. Amaresh, AIR 2006 SC 2730; and U.P.S.R.T.C. v. Vinod Kumar, (2008) 1 SCC 115 wherein it has been held that the punishment should always be proportionate to gravity of the misconduct. However, in a case of corruption, the only punishment is dismissal from service Therefore, the charge of corruption must always be dealt with keeping in mind that it has both civil and criminal consequences".
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 96 - A Alagiriswami - Full Document

Janatha Bazar (South Kanara Central ... vs The Secretary, Sahakari Noukarara ... on 21 September, 2000

"25. Similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Ruston & another; Hornsby (I) Ltd. v. T.B. Kadam, AIR 1975 SC 2025; U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Basudeo Chaudhary & Anr., (1997) 11 SCC 370; Janatha Bazar South Kanara Central Cooperative Wholesale Stores Ltd. & Ors. v. Secreatry, Sahakari Noukarar Sangha and Ors. (2000) 7 SCC 517; Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. B.S. Hullikatty, AIR 2001 SC 930; Regional Manager, R.S.R.T.C. v. Ghanshyam Sharma, (2002) 10 SCC 330; Divisional Controller N.E.K.R.T.C. v. H. Amaresh, AIR 2006 SC 2730; and U.P.S.R.T.C. v. Vinod Kumar, (2008) 1 SCC 115 wherein it has been held that the punishment should always be proportionate to gravity of the misconduct. However, in a case of corruption, the only punishment is dismissal from service Therefore, the charge of corruption must always be dealt with keeping in mind that it has both civil and criminal consequences".
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 183 - M B Shah - Full Document

Karnataka State Road Transport ... vs B.S. Hullikatti on 22 January, 2001

"25. Similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Ruston & another; Hornsby (I) Ltd. v. T.B. Kadam, AIR 1975 SC 2025; U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Basudeo Chaudhary & Anr., (1997) 11 SCC 370; Janatha Bazar South Kanara Central Cooperative Wholesale Stores Ltd. & Ors. v. Secreatry, Sahakari Noukarar Sangha and Ors. (2000) 7 SCC 517; Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. B.S. Hullikatty, AIR 2001 SC 930; Regional Manager, R.S.R.T.C. v. Ghanshyam Sharma, (2002) 10 SCC 330; Divisional Controller N.E.K.R.T.C. v. H. Amaresh, AIR 2006 SC 2730; and U.P.S.R.T.C. v. Vinod Kumar, (2008) 1 SCC 115 wherein it has been held that the punishment should always be proportionate to gravity of the misconduct. However, in a case of corruption, the only punishment is dismissal from service Therefore, the charge of corruption must always be dealt with keeping in mind that it has both civil and criminal consequences".
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 254 - Full Document
1   2 Next