RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
Bali Ram Prasad Singh, Son of Ram Pravesh Singh – Appellant
Versus
General Manager (H R) Cum Reviewing Authority Bank Of India – Respondent
Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J.
1. The present writ application has been preferred invoking extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this court for the following reliefs:
"(A) For issuance as "Mandamus" of an appropriate writ/order or direction to the respondents for quashing the dismissal order of petitioner by respondents-authorities (i) Penalty order Ref. No. ZO/C.M./DA/VIG-166/22 dated 30.06.2008 of Respondent no. 3 as Annexure-5. (ii) Ref. No.ZO/PAT/A/VIG-166/349 dated 16.12.2008 Appellate order or Respondent No. 2 as Annexure-5(A) and (iii) Ref. No. PAK, RA-070 dated 20.05.009 Review order of Respondent no. 1 as Annexure-5(b) are illegal, arbitrary and malafide.
(B) For issuance as 'Certiorari' of an appropriate writ/order or direction to the Respondents for reinstate the petitioner on their post with due promotion and other consequential benefits which is entitled as per Rule of the Bank.
(C)For issuance of appropriate writ/order or direction to the Respondents to restrain from the violation of Article 20(3), 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and Sections 101 and 102 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
(D) For issuance of appropriate writ/order or direction to the respondents as
Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank and Others vs. P.C. Kakkar
Disciplinary Authority-cum-Regional Manager and Ors. vs. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik
Kuldeep Singh vs. Commissioner of Police and Ors.
Nand Kishore Prasad vs. State of Bihar
State Bank of India and Ors. vs. Ramesh Dinkar Punde
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.