Judgments - Removal from Service
THE PROGRESSIVE EDUCATION SOCIETY AND ANR Vs MR.MOHAMMAD ALI GULAM DASTAGIR DAFEDAR AND ORS.
RAJIB DEWRI VS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS
SWAPAN ROY CHOWDHURY Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
RAJENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA
SRI UTPAL BORDOLOI VS CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA & ORS
K.R.Bedmutha Techno Associates Pvt. Ltd. Versus Arvind Arya
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. & 2 ORS. VS TARANI KANTA KAKATI
ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY VS THE UNION OF INDIA & 5 ORS.
Dilip Hedau Versus Chhattisgarh Hastashilp Vikas Board & Oth.
CORRESPONDENT, ANAIKAR ORIENTAL (ARABIC) HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL AND ANR. Vs. A. HAROON AND ANR.
JORSINGH GOVIND VANJARI Vs. DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, JALGAON DIVI
MANAGEMENT OF TNSTC LTD Vs. M. CHANDRASEKARAN
In our opinion, the Commissioner exceeded his jurisdiction in reappreciating the evidence adduced before the Enquiry Officer and in substituting his own judgment to that of the Disciplinary Authority. It was not a case of no legal evidence produced during the enquiry by the Department, in relation to the charges framed against Full Judgment
B.H. KHAWAS Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Indubitably, if the argument of the appellant was accepted, it would inevitably mean that all appointments made before 28.11.2000 must be protected even though it had not become final. That would also mean that all caste certificates issued to persons belonging to “Koshti” community, as being “Halba” Scheduled Tribe in Maharashtra, prior to November 28, 2000 (the day on which Milind’s case was decided Full Judgment
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Vs. DILER SINGH
MD ZAMIL AHMED Vs. STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
NANDRAM Vs. M/S GARWARE POLYSTER LTD.
PREM NARAIN Vs. M/S SWADESHI COTTON MILLS, JUHI & ANR.
SHOBHA RAM RATURI Vs. HARYANA VIDYUT PRASARAN NIGAM LTD.& ORS
Having given our thoughtful consideration to the controversy, we are satisfied, that after the impugned order of retirement dated 31.12.2002 was set aside, the appellant was entitled to all consequential benefits. The fault lies with the respondents in not having utilised the services of the appellant for the period from 1.1.2003 to 31.12.2005. Had the appellant been allowed to continue in service, Full Judgment
BRIJ BIHARI SINGH Vs. BIHAR STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION & ORS.(R-1,4,7)
It is well settled that a person who is required to answer a charge imposed should know not only the accusation but also the testimony by which the accusation is supported. The delinquent must be given fair chance to hear the evidence in support of the charge and to cross-examine the witnesses who prove the charge. The delinquent must also be given a chance to Full Judgment