w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Rajesh Gupta v/s Union of India Through its Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi & Another


Company & Directors' Information:- GUPTA CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U40100MH2005PTC154038

Company & Directors' Information:- M R GUPTA AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1992PTC051324

Company & Directors' Information:- RAJESH CORPORATION LIMITED [Active] CIN = U08011BR1993PLC005446

Company & Directors' Information:- AT HOME INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17211DL2001PTC112255

Company & Directors' Information:- GUPTA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51311DL1996PTC077255

Company & Directors' Information:- GUPTA AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U52110DL1974PTC007339

Company & Directors' Information:- GUPTA AND GUPTA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U55204DL1954PTC002390

Company & Directors' Information:- S K GUPTA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U26900MH1973PTC016294

Company & Directors' Information:- R. K. GUPTA AND COMPANY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1993PTC052138

Company & Directors' Information:- B R GUPTA AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U63013DL2000PTC107343

Company & Directors' Information:- T N GUPTA PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U02005WB1951PTC020141

Company & Directors' Information:- V HOME PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL2001PTC109331

Company & Directors' Information:- G. P. HOME PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U70102MH2011PTC213056

Company & Directors' Information:- A V GUPTA AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Converted to LLP] CIN = U24239DL1999PTC102248

Company & Directors' Information:- Y P GUPTA AND COMPANY PVT LTD [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U74899DL1983PTC016661

Company & Directors' Information:- J S GUPTA AND CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U20211UP1975PTC004078

Company & Directors' Information:- M K GUPTA AND CO PRIVATE LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U74999DL1979PTC009517

Company & Directors' Information:- A J GUPTA AND CO PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74210UP1980PTC004986

Company & Directors' Information:- RAJESH AND CO PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U12300MH1959PTC011285

Company & Directors' Information:- D. R. GUPTA & COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1944PTC000794

Company & Directors' Information:- S P GUPTA AND CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U26932RJ1972PTC001459

    OA. No. 944 of 2014

    Decided On, 17 March 2020

    At, Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. A.K. BISHNOI
    By, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

    For the Applicant: Nilansh Gaur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Rohit Sehrawat, Rajeev Kumar, Advocates.



Judgment Text


1. The applicant has filed the present OA seeking the following reliefs:-

“8.1 To set aside the impugned order of dismissal dated 31.1.2014 and further direct the respondents to reinstate the applicant in service with all consequential benefits including continuity, seniority, posting and back wages.

8.2 To set aside the Disagreement Note of disciplinary authority dated 10.5.2012; and

8.3 Any other relief which the Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and appropriate, in the circumstances of the case”.

2. Briefly, the facts of the present matter are as follows:

2.1 The applicant was posted as Deputy Commissioner, Lohit, Arunachal Pradesh, for the period from 06.01.2004 to 02.08.2004. On 23.03.2004, he was issued a show cause notice by the Chief Secretary, Andhra Pradesh, asking for his explanation on certain allegations. The applicant submitted his explanation and thereafter, on 20.07.2005, was issued a memorandum under Rule 8 of the All India Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969. The memorandum contains four articles of charge. An Inquiry Officer (IO) was appointed by the Government and the Inquiry Report was submitted on 13.04.2011 in which charges 1, 2 and 4 were held to be not proved and article of charge 3 was held to be partly proved. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority (DA) issued a Disagreement Note dated 10.05.2012 and the Charged Officer was given an opportunity to make a representation. The matter was referred to UPSC. A copy of the opinion of UPSC dated 05.08.2013 was forwarded to the applicant to make a representation in this regard. Subsequently, the DA issued an order dated 31.01.2014 whereby a penalty of “dismissal from service which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment under the Government? was imposed upon the applicant.

2.2 The applicant has made a submission that only article 3 was partly proved and other articles of charge were not proved. He has also contended that the DA disagreed with the findings of the IO and the reasons for disagreement should have been recorded and a tentative note should have been issued but the Disagreement Note indicates that the DA has already taken a final view in the matter. He further submits that the reasons mentioned in the Disagreement Note are not adequate and hence DA was not justified in coming to the conclusion that he arrived at.

2.3 It is also the contention of the applicant that the UPSC went beyond its mandate which is relating to the quantum of punishment and recorded its own findings. It is also his submission that his representation to the UPSC, on its advice, was not taken into consideration and a nonspeaking order was passed by the DA while passing the order of punishment.

3. The respondents filed a detailed counter reply. The respondents have contended that the Disagreement Note was served to the applicant and he was given an opportunity to submit his reply but he failed to do so. They have also justified the action of sending the matter to the UPSC for its advice and the response of the UPSC thereafter.

4. The matter came up before the Division Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice L. Narasimha Reddy, Chairman and Hon’ble Ms. Aradhana Johri, Member (A). Hon’ble Chairman while deciding the issue came to the following conclusion:-

“25. The result of the discussion undertaken above is that

i) the text of the disagreement note does not accord with the requirement of law;

ii) the order of punishment is vitiated on account of

a) lapses on the part of the disciplinary authority on the one hand, and assumption of role by the UPSC, which is not assigned to it in law, on the other; and

b) its being bereft of reasons in support of the conclusion.

xxx xxx xxx

27. Since the order of punishment is set aside, the applicant shall be deemed to have been reinstated for the limited purpose of continuing the disciplinary proceedings. He shall be treated to be under suspension, but without subsistence allowance, till the final order is passed by the disciplinary authority in accordance with the steps indicated above. The exercise in this behalf shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. Depending on the outcome of the proceedings, the manner in which the period of deemed suspension and other spells are to be treated, shall be decided by the disciplinary authority. There shall be no order as to costs.”

5. Hon’ble Member (A), on the other hand, has taken the view that the challenge to the Disagreement Note is not tenable. As regards the advice of the UPSC, it has been opined that all steps required by the UPSC have been duly followed and no fault can be found in it. It was also determined that the order of dismissal stands the scrutiny of law and should not be interfered with. Based on the conclusion, it was held that the OA deserves to be dismissed.

6. In view of the difference of opinion between the Hon’ble Chairman and the Hon’ble Member (A), the matter has been referred to a third Member (the undersigned) for adjudication on the following issues:-

“a) What is the procedure to be adopted by the Disciplinary Authority in the context of disagreeing with the findings recorded by the IO?

b) Whether it is competent for the UPSC to undertake any discussion upon the findings recorded by the IO, while rendering its opinion; and

c) Whether it is not incumbent upon the Disciplinary Authority to record reasons with reference to the explanation submitted by the delinquent employee, before an order of punishment is passed.”

7. Heard Shri Nilansh Gaur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant and Shri Rohit Sehrawat for Shri Rajeev Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

8. Learned counsel for the applicant further elaborated on the issues raised in the pleadings and submitted that the applicant was exonerated on three charges by the IO and one of the charges was only partly proved. The DA issued a Disagreement Note, which instead of being tentative was final in its nature. This, he submitted, was contrary to Rule 9(2) of All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969, as explained vide Office Memorandum dated 23.08.2012 of DoP&T. He also submitted that the reasons given in the Disagreement Note were not on the basis of an evidence available on record and that it was based on assumptions only. He further submitted that the UPSC should have confined itself with the issue of quantum of punishment and should not have given the findings on the charges. It was further added that following the UPSC advice, the applicant submitted his representation, but it was not considered by the DA while passing the final order which is evident from the way the order inflicting the penalty is worded.

9. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contended that the applicant was given full opportunity for making his representation against the Disagreement Note and despite several opportunities; he did not avail of this opportunity. It was, thus, asserted that the DA had an open mind in the issue and came to the conclusion only after providing a number of opportunities to the applicant. It was also his contention that the UPSC looked into the issue comprehensively and there was no flaw in the process and their advice. After obtaining the advice of the UPSC, the DA came to its conclusion after due application of mind.

10. I have carefully gone through the pleadings on record as well as the submissions made by the learned counsels and I now proceed to discuss the three issues referred to, one by one.

Issues for adjudication

(a) (i) The relevant Rule in connection with the Disagreement Note is Rule 9(2) of All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969, which reads as under:-

“9. Action on the inquiry report

xxx xxx xxx

(2) The disciplinary authority shall forward or cause to be forwarded a copy of the report of the inquiry, if any, held by the disciplinary authority or where the disciplinary authority is not the inquiring authority, a copy of the report of the inquiring authority together with its own tentative reasons for disagreement, if any with the findings of inquiry authority on any article of charge to the Member of the Service who shall be required to submit, if he so desires, his written representation of submission to the disciplinary authority within fifteen days, irrespective of whether the report is favourable or not to the Member of the Service.”

(emphasis supplied)

(ii) This Rule has been sufficiently explained through Office Memorandum dated 23.08.2012 of DoP&T, which reads as under:-

“I am directed to say that Rule 9(2) of AIS (D&A) Rules, 1969 states the Disciplinary Authority shall forward or cause to be forwarded a copy of the report of the inquiry, if any, held by the Disciplinary Authority or where the Disciplinary Authority is not the Inquiring Authority, a copy of the report of the Inquiring Authority together with its own tentative reasons for disagreement, if any with the findings of Inquiry Authority on any article of charge to the Member of the Service who shall be required to submit, if he so desires, his written representation of submission to the Disciplinary Authority within fifteen days, irrespective of whether the report is favourable or not to the Member of the Service.

The necessity of following the above mentioned rule 9(2) both in letter and spirit is reiterated. The communication forwarding the IO?s report along with the tentative reasons for disagreement, if any, seeking comments/representation of the Charged officer should reflect his position. All Ministries/Departments and State Governments are therefore, requested to ensure that the communication forwarding ‘the IO’s report etc. does not contain phrases such as ‘Article of charge is fully proved’ or “Article of charge is fully substantiated’ which could be construed to mean that the disciplinary authority is biased even before considering the representation of the charged officer and this would be against the letter and spirit of the AIS (D&A) Rules, 1969.

The instructions may be brought to the notice of all the members of All India Services.”

(emphasis supplied)

(iii) From a plain reading of these, there is no doubt that if the DA intends to disagree with the findings of the IO, he shall record the reasons for disagreement in a manner in which the reasons for disagreement are given but the conclusion still left open. The Charged Officer should be communicated these and given an opportunity to offer his side of the reasoning. If the Disagreement Note is so worded as to convey the sense that the DA has already arrived at a particular conclusion then it can in no way, be regarded as tentative. Part of the Disagreement Note issued through OM dated 10.05.2012, reads as under:-

“xxx xxx xxx

2. The Inquiring Authority’s report has been examined in the Ministry with the relevant documents and records. The disciplinary Authority (i.e. President) has decided to disagree with the findings contained in the Inquiring Authority’s report for the reasons/grounds mentioned in the Annexure enclosed.”

(emphasis supplied)

(iv) The Disagreement Note mentions that the charge against the Charged Officer is proved. From a plain reading of these, it is sufficiently clear that by no stretch of imagination can the Disagreement Note issued by the DA be taken as tentative in nature. It is clearly so worded as if the DA has already taken a decision and is only going through the formality, of giving the applicant an opportunity to make a representation. It should have been in the form of a preliminary finding providing opportunity for representation leaving option for correction rather than as a final view relegating all subsequent action to being a mere formality.

(v) Therefore, I find that the procedure adopted by the DA in the context of Disagreement Note is totally flawed and contrary to the Rules and instructions on the subject. I may also add that the substantive position of law has been laid down in Rule 9(2) of All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 and the DoP&T OM dated 23.08.2012 is only explanatory in nature for the benefit of those who could not appreciate the import of the provisions regarding the Disagreement Note. This being so, the date of its issue vis-a-vis the date of Disagreement Note, is of no consequence. It has to be read not as laying down the law but only as explaining it.

(b) (i) The DA referred the matter to the UPSC for advice. There is no doubt, that the role of UPSC in such matters is purely advisory. The involvement of Constitutional Authorities is inherently to ensure that justice is fully done. The UPSC, while discharging its functions, regarding the advice, is not expected to place itself in the position of the I

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

O and substitute their own judgement in place of the IO, as regards whether the charges are proved or otherwise. (ii) On the articles of charge, the UPSC has gone into the area of appreciation of evidence and on each count have come to the conclusion that the charges stand proved. Thus, by doing so, it has gone beyond its expected role. The UPSC is a body, whose role in the matter is to examine the issues in the context of adherence to rules and procedure and not assign to itself the role of the IO. (c) (i) Now to the third question. The DA has to take into account the material before him. He did not even refer to the representation of the Charged Officer and does not even attempt to deal with the issue raised in the representation. He only relied on the advice of the UPSC. In the process, he did not keep in view that the comments of UPSC are only advisory in nature and not mandatory. He has to evaluate them and reach his own conclusions. Issues raised in the representation of the Charged Officer are not even mentioned, leave alone considered or discussed. It is in no way a speaking order and is totally contrary to the principles of natural justice. DA was required to record reasons with relevance to the explanation submitted by the charged employee before passing the order of punishment. 11. The issues are answered accordingly. The Registry shall place the file before the Hon’ble Chairman for necessary order.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

20-10-2020 Chandradev @ Chandu & Another Versus State of Maharashtra through Chief Secretary of Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
15-10-2020 Ajay Gupta Versus Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Limited National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
15-10-2020 Senior Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India Versus Rajesh Kumar National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
13-10-2020 D. Jeyanthi Versus The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-10-2020 N. Shankar Prasad Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department Secretariat, Velagapudi & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
13-10-2020 Gaddi Gangi Reddy Versus The State of Telangana, rep., by its Principal Secretary, Department of Home Affairs & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
09-10-2020 Yovehel & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra Through Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
09-10-2020 Nilay Gupta Versus Chairman Neet PG Medical & Dental Admission/Counselling Board 2020 & Principal Govt. Dental College & Others Supreme Court of India
08-10-2020 Ricardo Agnelo Teixeira De Almeida Queiroz & Another Versus Rajesh Sawal & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
08-10-2020 Rajeev Ranjan Versus UT of J&K, Through Principal Secretary, Home Deptt. & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
05-10-2020 Shekh Rafiq Versus State of Maharashtra, through it's Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32 & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
05-10-2020 Parul Majumdar Laskar & Others Versus The Union of India to Be Rep. By The Secy., Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India, New Delhi & Others High Court of Gauhati
01-10-2020 M/s. Arun Kumar Kamal Kumar & Others Versus M/s. Selected Marble Home & Others Supreme Court of India
01-10-2020 M/s. Magma Fincorp Ltd. Versus Rajesh Kumar Tiwari Supreme Court of India
01-10-2020 M/s. Magma Fincorp Ltd. Versus Rajesh Kumar Tiwari Supreme Court of India
01-10-2020 M. Meenachi Muppidathi Versus The Government of India, Representing by The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
01-10-2020 M. Meenachi Muppidathi Versus The Government of India, Representing by The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
01-10-2020 Saurabh Gupta Versus Unique Identification Auth. of India Thru C.E.O & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
30-09-2020 Harish Trivedi Versus State of U.P. Through Prin. Secy. Home & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
30-09-2020 A.B. Venkateswara Rao Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
29-09-2020 The Government of Tamil Nadu Represented by its Secretary, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Chennai & Another Versus S. Indramoorthy High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-09-2020 The Government of Tamil Nadu Represented by its Secretary, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Chennai & Another Versus S. Indramoorthy High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-09-2020 Ashu Gupta Versus Securities & Exchange Board of India SEBI Securities amp Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
29-09-2020 C. Sivasankaran Versus Foreigner Regional Registration Officer (FRRO), Bureau of Immigration, Ministry of Home Affairs, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-09-2020 Manoj @ Sallar & Others Versus State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Home Lko. & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
28-09-2020 Deepak Gupta Versus State of Orissa High Court of Orissa
25-09-2020 Dr. Jitendra Gupta Versus Dr. C. Chandramouli, IAS (Secretary, DoP&T, Government of India) Supreme Court of India
24-09-2020 State of Kerala, Represented by The Assistant Labour Officer, Munnar, Through The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam Versus Annakutty Varghese, Proprietress, M/s. Misha Holiday Home, Munnar High Court of Kerala
23-09-2020 Sunita @ Sunita Devi Versus The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Home Department, Government of Bihar, Patna & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
23-09-2020 Mahabooba Jailani Versus The Home Secretary, Home Department (Prison), Secretariat, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-09-2020 K. Anandhi @ Rani Versus The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Dept., Secretariat, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-09-2020 Dr. Rajesh Kumar Yaduvanshi Versus Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) & Another High Court of Delhi
21-09-2020 Kumaresan @ Chetty Versus The Home Secretary (Prison), Secretariat, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-09-2020 Sundaram Home Finance Limited Versus Rahul Jayvantrao Kaulavkar & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
17-09-2020 Dinesh Gupta & Others Versus Anand Gupta & Others High Court of Delhi
17-09-2020 Rajesh & Another Versus State of Kerala, Represented by The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam & Another High Court of Kerala
14-09-2020 Vijay Vilasrao Sutare Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through, Secretary, home department, State of Maharashtra, Mantralay Mumbai & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
11-09-2020 Jeevitha Versus State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Secretary, Home,Prohibition & Excise Department, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-09-2020 K. Ravishankar Versus State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
10-09-2020 K. Ravishankar Versus State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
10-09-2020 Raina Begum Versus The Union of India Rep. By The Comm & Secy. to The Govt. of India, Home Deptt., New Delhi-01, India & Others High Court of Gauhati
09-09-2020 Mittal Electronics Versus Sujata Home Appliances (P) Ltd. & Others High Court of Delhi
07-09-2020 Badri Narayan Singh & Another Versus The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) Government of India, through the Home Secretary North Block, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
07-09-2020 M/s. Smart Logistics, Unity Building Puthiyapalom, Kozhikode, Represented by Its Managing Partner, M. Gopinath Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary to Home Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthauram & Others High Court of Kerala
04-09-2020 Rajesh Kumar Singh Versus State Public Service Tribunal Thru.Chairman & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
04-09-2020 Avanti Mathur Versus Ram Gopal Gupta High Court of Delhi
04-09-2020 K. Ebnezer Versus The State of Telangana, rep by its Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
04-09-2020 Raghav Gupta Versus State (NCT of Delhi) & Another Supreme Court of India
03-09-2020 Rajiv @ Raju Gupta & Others Versus State (through) Public Prosecutor High Court of Bombay at Goa High Court Building Altinho, Panjim & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
03-09-2020 B. Rajesh & Another Versus Union of India, Rep. by its Ministry of Corporate Affairs, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-09-2020 Baldev Singh Versus Munita Gupta & Another High Court of Chhattisgarh
31-08-2020 Rajesh Kumar Sharma @ Rajesh Kumar Versus C.B.I. High Court of Delhi
31-08-2020 Dr.R.S. Gupta Versus Govt. of NCTD & Others High Court of Delhi
28-08-2020 Ram Vikram Singh (In Person) Versus State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lko & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
28-08-2020 Renu Gupta Versus Ram Pal Singh, Basic Education Officer & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
28-08-2020 Mahendra Yadav Versus State of Assam Represented By Home Secretary Government of Assam & Another High Court of Gauhati
27-08-2020 Dr. Rajesh Versus Triloki Raghubani & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
27-08-2020 Bhimsen Tyagi Versus The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government (Poll), Home Department Secretariat, Hyderabad & Another High Court of for the State of Telangana
26-08-2020 Manohar Kumar Gupta Versus Presiding officer, MACT, Jammu & Another High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
26-08-2020 Vikas Gupta Versus State & Others High Court of Delhi
24-08-2020 Abhishek Gupta & Others Versus State of U.P. & Another High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
24-08-2020 Sumathi Versus State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-08-2020 The Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Judicature of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad Versus The Union of India, The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
18-08-2020 G. Naganna Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
14-08-2020 Kasmikoya Biyyammabiyoda & Others Versus Union of India, Represented by Home Secretary, Secretariat, Government of India, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
14-08-2020 Salman @ Baba Versus The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32 & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
14-08-2020 R. Suresh Kumar Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretary to Home Department, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
14-08-2020 Rajesh Versus The District Collector, Trichy District, Trichy & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-08-2020 A. Pushpaganthi Versus The State rep by its the Home Secretary (Prison), Secretariat, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-08-2020 Thripurala Suresh Versus The State of Telangana, rep., by its Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
11-08-2020 Rajesh Kumar Versus Prithvi Raj & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
10-08-2020 Harsha Dewani Versus Ashutosh Gupta High Court of Chhattisgarh
07-08-2020 Dr. Rajesh Khoth Versus State of Haryana, through Chief Secretary & Another Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench
07-08-2020 S. Thangam Versus The Home Secretary Home Department Secretariat, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-08-2020 S. Thangam Versus The Home Secretary Home Department Secretariat, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-08-2020 Mohemmed @ Bava Versus State of Kerala, Represented by The Secretary to Home, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
06-08-2020 Vadde Padmamma Versus The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department, Secretariat BRKR Bhavan, Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
06-08-2020 Rajesh Shantilal Sayani Versus State of Gujarat High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
06-08-2020 C.B. Rajesh Versus M.G. Justin & Others High Court of Kerala
05-08-2020 L. Srinivasan Versus The Home Secretary (Prison), Secretariat, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-08-2020 Rajesh Singh Rana Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Another High Court of Chhattisgarh
04-08-2020 Union of India, Rep by its Secretary to the Government, Department of Home Affairs, New Delhi & Others Versus Siva Lakshmi High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-08-2020 Omkar Gupta & Another Versus State of Chhattisgarh High Court of Chhattisgarh
03-08-2020 Baliram Versus The State of Maharashtra Through its Section Officer Home Department (Special) Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
31-07-2020 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Rajesh Kumar Dy. Manager, New Delhi Versus Biking Food Products (P) Ltd., Telangana National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
30-07-2020 C.R. Mahesh Versus Union of India, Represented by The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
30-07-2020 Chegireddy Venkata Reddy Versus The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Secretariat Building, Velagapudi, Amaravai High Court of Andhra Pradesh
29-07-2020 Radhey Shyam Gupta & Others Versus State of U.P. & Another High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
29-07-2020 R. Rajesh Versus A.M. Mohammed Jabarullah (died) & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-07-2020 Satyabrat Gupta V/S The State of Jharkhand Supreme Court of India
28-07-2020 Nalini Singh Versus Lt. Col. Rajesh Kumar Singh High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
22-07-2020 M/s. Rajesh Export Limited, Represented by its Chairman Rajesh Mehta Versus Reserve Bank of India & Another High Court of Karnataka
17-07-2020 M.G. Jose & Others Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary, Government of Kerala, Department of Home Affairs, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram High Court of Kerala
17-07-2020 G. Rajesh Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-07-2020 G. Rajesh Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
16-07-2020 Kalpana Gupta Versus Securities and Exchange Board of India SEBI Securities amp Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
16-07-2020 Sasikala Versus The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
16-07-2020 Sk. Imran Ali Versus The State of Telangana, rep. by its Prl. Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
14-07-2020 K. Deepa Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary to Government, Department of Home Affairs, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
13-07-2020 Radhakrishnan Versus The Home Secretary (Prison) Home Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras