Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.49 seconds)
Documents citing Saroj Bhattacharyya vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 10 January, 2003

Karuna Das vs State Of Assam And Ors. on 13 May, 2004

13. As regards the submission of Mr. Dasgupta, that even if the charge against the petitioner is held to be established, the penalty of discharge from service is grossly disproportionate is not at all tenable, the petitioner being a member of the disciplined force. Such a plea was raised in the case of Saroj Kr. Bhattacharyya v. Union of India and Ors. as reported in 2003(2) GLT 72. In that case also the petitioner was a member of the disciplined force and remained unauthorisedly absent from duty. Pursuant to departmental proceeding he was removed from service. Learned Single Judge of this Court as well as the Division Bench of this Court rejected the claim of the petitioner that the penalty imposed was grossly disproportionate.
Gauhati High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Motilal Cheran vs State Of Meghalaya And Ors. on 21 March, 2006

This is the view taken by the Division Bench of this Court in Saroj Bhattacharyya (supra). In the present case, admittedly, no presenting officer was appointed the petitioner is not a lowly placed Grade IV employee. He is a Sub Inspector of Police. Above all, the petitioner, at no point of time, appears to have expressed any discomfort in facing the departmental enquiry on account of non-availability of the services of a defence assistant.
Gauhati High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - R Gogoi - Full Document

Md. Rustom Ali vs State Of Assam And Ors. on 23 July, 2003

5. This would take the Court to certain other more fundamental issues, as raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It has been argued that the petitioner was not made aware of his right to have the service of a defence assistant; the enquiry must necessarily fall through, it was sought to be argued. Time and again, it has been held by numerous judicial pronouncements including a recent judgment of this Court in the case of Saroj Kr. Bhattacharyya v. Union of India and Ors., reported in 2003 (2) GLT 72 that failure of the disciplinary authority or the Enquiry Officer to apprise the delinquent of his right to have the services of a defence assistant does not necessarily give rise to fatal consequences. The fatality would depend on prejudice and the prejudice like any other question of fact has to be pleaded and proved. In the present case, no prejudice is even remotely pleaded in the writ petition.
Gauhati High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - R Gogoi - Full Document
1