Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.82 seconds)
Documents citing S. Krishnan Nair vs The Divisional Superintendent (P.B.), ... on 3 December, 1971

Praveen Kumar vs Cabinet Secretariat on 16 December, 2022

6. The applicant in his application has cited the Apex court's judgment in case of S. Krishnan Nair vs. Divisional Superintendent, Southern Railway, 1973 SLI 46: (1973) 2 SLR 353; wherein it has been held that the inquiry should be held most impartial and unbiased manner. If the inquiry officer puts questions with a view to elucidating answers and searching cross examination, he ceases to be an inquiry officer and it will be presumed that IO is prejudiced against the CO. In the instant case, to support his arguments, the applicant has mentioned that the IO had asked the applicant to accept the charge of absence and took the said admission as guilt.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

High Court Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By The ... vs G. Narasa Reddy And Anr. on 29 March, 1996

In the case of S. Krishnan Nair v. Divisional Supdt, Southern Rly., 1973 (2) SLR 353 it is held. that it is not that a person who faces the charge should not be asked any question by the Enquiry Officer. Normally such statement is taken after the close of the evidence. If the attempt by the Enquiry Officer is not to seek the accused to explain the case against him but to elucidate certain material out of him so that the charge which is otherwise unsubstantiated is proved, the enquiry is certainly vitiated.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 18 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

The State Of Punjab vs Ranjit Singh on 29 March, 2010

Reference was made to the view taken in S. Krishnan Nair Vs. The Divisional Superintendent (Pb.), Southern Railway, Olavakod and others, 1973 (2) SLR 353, to say that where the inquiry officer had cross examined the witnesses then the inquiry may get vitiated. This issue has also been considered by this Court in Regular Second Appeal No. 2974 of 1985 decided on 11.03.2010. After making reference to Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 and various sub rules, it is observed as under:-
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - R Singh - Full Document

Jalwinder Singh vs The Commandant on 28 November, 1998

7. It is the case of the petitioner that the enquiry was conducted in violation of the procedural formalities. Cross examination conducted by the enquiry officer, according to the petitioner, nullified the enquiry as well as the punishments awarded to him. The petitioner relied on a series of judgments of this Court, according to which, the enquiry officer has to elicit W.P(C) No.12642 of 2013-E 5 facts from the delinquent, by putting leading questions. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgments of this Court in S.Krishnan Nair v. Divisional Supdt. S. Rly.
Kerala High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1