SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2005 Supreme(AP) 914

B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J.CHELAMESWAR, P.S.NARAYANA
Government Of A. P. – Appellant
Versus
M. A. Majeed – Respondent


J. CHELAMESWAR, B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, P. S. NARAYANA, J, J.

( 1 ) I had the advantage of going through the judgments rendered by both my learned brothers. Both of them arrived at the same conclusion, but for slightly different reasons.

( 2 ) I prefer to add a couple of sentences of my own while agreeing with the conclusion of my learned brother. The importance of a disciplinary enquiry or a departmental enquiry in Service jurisprudence need not be over emphasized. In view of the importance of the question involved in the present matter, the Division bench thought it fit to refer the matter thus inviting a decision on the said point. The learned Counsel on record made elaborate submissions in relation to the language employed in Rule 19 of the A. P. Civil services (Classification, Control and Appeal) rules, 1963, and Rule 20 of the amended rules of 1991. Certain submissions were made even in relation to the meaning of "cause to be drawn" and also incidentally rule 21 of the 1991 Rules and certain clarificatory memos and the G. Os. , in relation thereto issued by the Government also had been pointed out. In the light of the reasons in detail recorded by my learned brother, the said re

















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top