Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 1831 (1.39 seconds)
Documents citing Roop Singh Negi vs Punjab National Bank & Ors on 19 December, 2008

Central University Of Jharkhand vs Harish Mohan Son Of Late Jagdish Prasad ... on 16 May, 2024

(i) The question of applicability of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Roop Singh Negi vs. Punjab National Bank and others (supra) and State of Uttar Pradesh and others vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha (supra) is not at all applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case since in these cases the factual aspect is quite different to that of the present one. Here, in the present case the writ petitioner time and again, even though has been noticed to participate in the enquiry, but he has chosen not to appear rather on each and every date when the notice was issued, he has communicated through e-mail that he will not appear. The contention, therefore, has been raised that a public servant is required to obey the order passed by the competent authority but not appearing intentionally is nothing but an arrogant attitude of the writ petitioner.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - S N Prasad - Full Document

Upendra R. Shah vs State Of Gujarat & 2 on 16 April, 2015

In  the  instant  case,  it  is  not   the   case   of   the   petitioner   that   he   was  forced  to  sign upon  any confession  or  that  he  was coerced into doing so. In   Roop Singh Negi   v. Punjab National Bank (supra), the appellant  therein was tortured in the police station. In  the   present   case,   the   admission   of   the  petitioner   was   not   given   before   the   police  officer but was voluntarily given in the written  statement   of   defence   by   the   petitioner   before  the   Inquiry   Officer.
Gujarat High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 1 - A Kumari - Full Document

Maharashtra State Road Transport vs Shri Sheikh Rahman Sheikh Karim on 9 September, 2009

Unless that certificate is proved, in view of (2009) 2 SCC 570; Roop Singh Negi vs. Punjab National Bank and others, it can not be held that the allegations against the respondent no.1 during the departmental proceedings were properly proved. Why medical officer, concerned police officers, and other eye witnesses to the alleged causing of accident under intoxication i.e. passenger, conductor etc were not examined, is not known. But as they have not been examined, the evidence of Shri Trivedi. The Assistant Security ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:59:40 ::: 21 Officer, cannot be said to be sufficient to substantiate the alleged misconduct of respondent no.1. Petitioner department owed duty to lead all evidence that was necessary as the charges levelled against respondent no.1 Driver were serious and conduct leading to the danger to the public at large which its concerned officers failed to perform.
Bombay High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 1 - S R Dongaonkar - Full Document

Gautam Atmaram Birhade vs The Assistant Security Commissioner, ... on 5 August, 2016

17. As held by the Honourable Apex Court in the case of Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank and Ors (cited supra), the purported evidence collected during the investigation by the investigating officer in a crime registered against the delinquent by itself could not be treated to be the evidence in the disciplinary proceedings. We find it appropriate to reproduce hereinbelow paragraph nos. 10 and 17 of the aforesaid judgment, which are specifically relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner:
Bombay High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - P R Bora - Full Document

Dr. Janardan Prasad Sukumar vs The State Of Bihar on 20 April, 2024

In Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank, (2009) 2 SCC 570, relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, the Hon'ble Supreme Court said that "Indisputably, a departmental proceeding is a quasi-judicial proceeding. The enquiry officer performs a quasi-judicial function. The charges levelled against the delinquent officer must be found to have been proved. The enquiry officer has a duty to arrive at a finding upon taking into consideration the materials brought on record by the parties." "Furthermore, the order of the disciplinary authority as also the appellate authority are not supported by any reason. As the orders passed by them have severe civil consequences, appropriate reasons should have been assigned."
Patna High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - M K Shah - Full Document

Sh Dixshu vs Controller General Of Accounts on 17 October, 2025

8.3 Distinguishing the applicant's reliance on Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank, reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570, learned counsel argued that the facts of that case differ materially. There, the finding rested solely on an unproved confession, whereas here, the evidence comprises the applicant's own correspondence and official records, which remained undisputed. Hence, no witness examination was necessary as the charges stood proved through documentary evidence. Though the strict provisions of the Evidence Act and CPC do not apply to departmental inquiries, their principles permit drawing presumptions under Section 114 of the Evidence Act from admitted and unrebutted records. Accordingly, the authorities rightly concluded that the applicant's continued unauthorized absence amounted to misconduct.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 49 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next