Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

pretext. It is contended by the applicant that no subsequent ratification can validate an action which was without jurisdiction in the beginning. The applicant refers

pretext. It is contended by the applicant that no subsequent ratification can validate an action which was without jurisdiction in the beginning. The applicant refers

state that the superannuation of the applicant on 29.02.2012 is not a valid reason to drop the inquiry proceedings. They also submit that by completing ... defence of the applicant forwarded the proposal for penalty to DOT for ratification. The impugned order dated 12.02.2013 at Annexure A3 was issued on receipt

Dr B Ashok Ias vs Department Of Personnel And Training on 3 June, 2025 1

Ummer A C vs M/O Shipping on 15 January, 2019 1 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

Kk Abdul Wahab vs M/O Shipping on 15 January, 2019 1 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

Midhun Raj.C.U vs Union Of India on 10 January, 2017 Author: P.Gopinath

Vijayakrishnan vs Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute For ... on 6 June, 2017 Author: P.Gopinath Bench

M R Ramadas vs M/O Communication & Information ... on 28 July, 2017 Author: P

I. Jessy S vs Union Of India Represented By The on 5 November, 2009 CENTRAL