Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.28 seconds)The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
State Of Andhra Pradesh vs N. Radhakishan on 7 April, 1998
Same procedure is to be followed in consideration the cases of confirmation.
He submitted that since the State Government had not carried out the three monthly reviews as per the rules, the sealed cover should be opened and the recommendations of the DPC must be implemented. He clarified that this is what was required by Rule 19 itself and he submitted that he was never asking for any deviation from the rules. He also read through extensively from the letter No.893/SC.D/A3/2001-13, dated 1.10.2007 through which the State Government had rejected the request of the Central Bureau of Investigation for according sanction of prosecution under Section 197 Cr.PC against the applicant. He submitted that there was no case for prosecuting the applicant and there was no substance in the prosecution sanctioned by the Central Government. He heavily relied upon the case of P.V.Mahadevan v. MD, T.N.Housing Board reported at 2005 SCC (L&S) 861 and on the case of State of A.P. v. N.Radhakishan reported at (1998) 4 SCC 154. He submitted that having regard to these cases, the sealed cover must be opened and the recommendations of the DPC must be implemented forthwith particularly because the criminal case had been pending in this case for over 11 years and justice was being denied to the applicant unnecessarily.
P.V. Mahadevan vs M.D. Tamil Nadu Housing Board on 8 August, 2005
Same procedure is to be followed in consideration the cases of confirmation.
He submitted that since the State Government had not carried out the three monthly reviews as per the rules, the sealed cover should be opened and the recommendations of the DPC must be implemented. He clarified that this is what was required by Rule 19 itself and he submitted that he was never asking for any deviation from the rules. He also read through extensively from the letter No.893/SC.D/A3/2001-13, dated 1.10.2007 through which the State Government had rejected the request of the Central Bureau of Investigation for according sanction of prosecution under Section 197 Cr.PC against the applicant. He submitted that there was no case for prosecuting the applicant and there was no substance in the prosecution sanctioned by the Central Government. He heavily relied upon the case of P.V.Mahadevan v. MD, T.N.Housing Board reported at 2005 SCC (L&S) 861 and on the case of State of A.P. v. N.Radhakishan reported at (1998) 4 SCC 154. He submitted that having regard to these cases, the sealed cover must be opened and the recommendations of the DPC must be implemented forthwith particularly because the criminal case had been pending in this case for over 11 years and justice was being denied to the applicant unnecessarily.
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Bani Singh And Another on 5 April, 1990
6. The applicant has relied upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case pf State of Madhya Pradesh Vs Bani Singh (1990 Supp 738); also on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of A.P. Vs N. Radhakishan reported in (1998) 4 SCC 154 and also on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P.V. Mahadevan Vs M.D., Tamilnadu Housing Board (CDJ 2005 SC 592 ) and has contended that the law laid down regarding departmental proceedings was equally applicable to CBI cases. It is submitted in the OA that having regard to the nature and substance of charges against him, denial of Above Super Time Scale to the applicant was unfair and arbitrary.