REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

RAJENDRA Appellant

V/S

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

BABUBHAI MULJIBHAI PATEL VS. NANDLAL KHODTDAS BAROT [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. INDIAN HUME PIPE COMPANY LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
MANAGING DIRECTOR ECIL HYDERABAD VS. B KARUNAKAR [REFERRED TO]
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK CHIEF PERSONNEL DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK VS. KUNJ BEHARI MISRA:SHANTI PRASAD GOEL [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION VS. REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS MUMBAI [REFERRED TO]
YOGINATH D BAGDE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. ARVIND K SHUKLA [REFERRED TO]
STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. K P NARAYANAN KUTTY [REFERRED TO]
STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. K P NARAYANAN KUTTY [REFERRED TO]
CANARA BANK VS. DEBASIS DAS [REFERRED TO]
SETH CHAND RATAN VS. PANDIT DURGA PRASAD [REFERRED TO]
J A NAIKSATAM VS. PROTHONOTARY and SENIOR MASTER HIGH COURT [REFERRED TO]
RANJIT SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
RANJIT SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
P D AGRAWAL VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.

(2.) This is a peculiar case wherein, the employer has practically ignored the fundamental principles of service jurisprudence, while partly disagreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and attaching a stigma to the career of Petitioner which has affected his career, though he was exonerated by the Enquiry Officer of all the charges levelled against him.

(3.) This Petition before us is for seeking the deemed date of promotion, in terms of prayer clauses (B), (C) and (D), which read as under:-

Click here to view full judgment.

RAJENDRA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address