Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.29 seconds)
Ashok Kumar S/O Ram Murat vs D.I.G. C.R.P.F. And Ors. on 16 December, 2005 cites

Secy. Deptt. Of Home Secy.A.P. & Ors vs B. Chinnam Naidu on 9 February, 2005

22. The next case relied by the appellant Secretary, Department of Home Secretary, A.P. and Ors. v. B. Chinnam Naidu (Supra) and on its strength he contended that even if he mentioned a wrong fact in the verification form, since he was ultimately acquitted in the criminal case, therefore, his dismissal from service is illegal. The contention is wide off the mark. The facts of the case of B. Chinnam Naidu are totally different. In the said case column 12 of the attestation form was in the following words:
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 85 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Ors vs Ram Ratan Yadav on 26 February, 2003

20. The Apex Court in the case of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (Supra) considered almost similar case where Ram Ratan Yadav was selected for the post of Physical Education teacher and was issued appointment order on 16.12.1997. He was required to file attestation form and in column 12(1) of the said form, the information was required as to whether any criminal case was pending against him, which he replied by mentioning 'No'. Subsequently, it was disclosed that a criminal case was actually pending against him under Sections 323, 341, 294, 506B read with Section 34 I.P.C. and on the ground of suppression of factual information, his services were terminated vide order dated 7th April/8th April, 1999. In the said case also, subsequently the said criminal case was withdrawn by the Government and in these circumstances, his writ petition was allowed by the High Court. Reversing the judgment of the High Court, the Apex Court held as hereunder :
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 263 - S V Patil - Full Document
1   2 Next