Judgments - Service Law / Matter , Provident Funds
Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank Versus Arun Phansalkar and Ors
MANOJ KUMAR AND OTHERS VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
NISCHALRAUNAQ NAWAL SINGH VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
SANTOSH KUMAR VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
VIKAS SINGH VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ANR
Indian Bank and another Versus Mahaveer Khariwal
Jagdish Singh Jatav vs. State of MP and Others
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS. Versus SMT. SURESHWATI
SH. N.K. MADHOK VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
State of M.P. & another Vs. Vishnu Prasad Maran & another
Law laid down - [1] Section 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypith Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 - The Writ Court has taken a plausible view. No interference is warranted. Even if another view is possible, it cannot be a ground for interference. [2] The Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966 – Rule 10 – The punishment of “Censure”. The punishment enlisted in Rule 10 can be imposed on “existing government servants”. The said punishment cannot Full Judgment
BALWAN SINGH & ANR VERSUS MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS & ANR
MOHAMMAD MOKARAM VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ANR
SHARAD KUMAR SINHA VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ANR
RAMDULAR SINGH & ANR VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS
KRISHNA KANT YADAV VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS VERSUS RAMESH KUMAR RAJPUT
AVINASH KISHORE SAHAY VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS VERSUS V.P. MUNGHATE AND ORS
Dr. Chandramani Mishra Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh & others
Law laid down - If the Disciplinary Authority proceeds under Rule 14 of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966, then it does not mean that the Authority can only impose major penalty, but it can be culminate into a minor penalty too. Full Judgment