Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.55 seconds)
Rajagopal Gangadhar Sajekan vs The High Court Of Karnataka, Bangalore ... on 11 February, 2000 cites

Amar Kant Choudhary vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 3 January, 1984

In Amar Kant Choudhary v State of Bihar and Others, the main contention urged was that the Selection Committee had committed an illegality in rejecting the claim of appellant for being included in the select list by relying upon adverse entries made in the confidential rolls, which had not been communicated to him or against which he had made representation which had remained undisposed of and which had been subsequently expunged.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 48 - E S Venkataramiah - Full Document

P.K. Shastri vs State Of M.P. & Ors on 19 August, 1999

(b) The Confidential Records of an officer are basically the performance appraisal of the officer and constitute vital service record in relation to his career advancement. As any adverse remark in the CRs could mar the entire career of the officer, the authority making or directing such remark should take an objective decision after careful consideration of all relevant material, that it is imperative to make such remark having regard to acts of the officer (P.K. Shastri v State of Madhya Pradesh and Others).
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 33 - Full Document

Baidyanath Mahapatra vs State Of Orissa & Anr on 10 August, 1989

(d) Once an officer is promoted to a higher post on the basis of merit and selection, adverse entries, if any, made in the service record prior to such promotion lose their significance and remain merely a part of past service record. The service of the officer cannot thereafter be curtailed by compulsory premature retirement on the basis of such adverse remarks made prior to promotion, in the absence of any further adverse remarks or fall in performance after the promotion. Further, it is not permissible to prematurely retire an officer on the basis of adverse entries, representations against which are not considered and disposed of (Baidyanath Mahapatra v State of Orissa and Another).
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 65 - K N Singh - Full Document

Union Of India & Ors vs E.G. Nambudiri on 23 April, 1991

39. The petitioner gave representations dated 29-8-1989, 31-8-1989 and 29-1-1990 for expunction of the said remarks on the ground that the remarks were not justified. He contended that statistics for the said period showed that he was also disposing of old cases and he never avoided hard work. After consideration of the said representations, it was found that there was no need to expunge the said Adverse Remark I (1987), and rejection of his request for expunction was communicated to petitioner, by letter dated 8-2-1990. Petitioner contends that the rejection of his request for expunction is not proper and has been done in a mechanical manner without application of mind and without assigning any reasons. But, as held in Nambudiri's case, supra, failure to record reasons for rejecting the representation against the adverse remarks will not render the rejection illegal.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 193 - K N Singh - Full Document

Nand Kishore Prasad vs State Of Bihar And Ors on 19 April, 1978

In Nand Kishore Prasad v State of Bihar and Others, the Supreme Court held that if the disciplinary enquiry has been conducted fairly without bias or predilection, in accordance with relevant rules, the order passed by the Authority cannot be interfered in writ proceedings merely on the ground that it was based on evidence which would be insufficient for conviction of the delinquent on the same charge in a criminal trial; and the High Court will examine the records not with a view to make out or reconstruct a new case, but only to see whether there was some evidence of the primary facts relied upon by the Inquiry Authority in support of its conclusion.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 200 - R S Sarkaria - Full Document

Managing Director Ecil Hyderabad Etc. ... vs B. Karunakar Etc. Etc on 1 October, 1993

50. The petitioner next urged that he had submitted representations/objections dated 17-9-1993 objecting to the Enquiry Reports and no reasons are assigned in the orders of punishment dated 17-11-1993 for rejecting his objections and therefore imposition of punishments by acceptance of the Enquiry Reports is illegal. He relied on the observation of the Supreme Court in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad v B. Karunakar, that "the Disciplinary Authority has to consider the representation of the employee against the report before it arrives at its conclusion with regard to his guilt or innocence of the charges". As noticed above, the Enquiry Reports dated 29-6-1993 and 30-6-1993 in the two cases submitted by the Inquiry Authority, were placed before Administrative Committee No. 1 of the High Court on 9-7-1993. The Committee considered the reports and directed that copies of the reports be furnished to petitioner and he be given show cause. When petitioner filed his objections dated 17-9-1993, the reports of the Inquiry Authority and the representations of the petitioners were considered by the Administrative Committee No. 1 on 12-10-1993 and it was resolved to recommend acceptance of the findings recorded against the petitioner in the Enquiry Report and to impose penalty. The entire record including the reports of the Inquiry Authority, the representations of the petitioner and the recommendations of the Administrative Committee No. 1 were placed before the Full Court on 19-10-1993. The Full Court after considering the Inquiry Report, and the representations of the petitioner and all other material on record resolved to accept the findings of the Inquiry Authority and the recommendation of Administrative Committee No. 1 and imposed penalties, which was communicated by the orders dated 17-11-1993.
Supreme Court of India Cites 64 - Cited by 2043 - Full Document
1   2 Next