Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13022 (1.41 seconds)
Documents citing Managing Director Ecil Hyderabad Etc. ... vs B. Karunakar Etc. Etc on 1 October, 1993

The Management Of Bokaro Steel Plant Of ... vs Amarwa Devi on 22 April, 2024

III. The learned labour court as also the learned Single Judge has relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Managing Director ECIL, Hydrabad Vs. B. Karunakar (supra) but the said judgment in the facts and circumstances of the present case will not be applicable hence according to learned counsel the award passed by learned labour court as also the order passed by learned Single Judge suffers from error and are not sustainable in the eyes of law.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - S N Prasad - Full Document

Prof.M.K.Surappa vs The Joint Secretary

28. The above case is also one of the instances wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court followed its landmark ruling in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and others Vs. B.Karunakar and Others and held that the opinion formed to punish a person without forwarding a copy of the inquriy report and obtaining his comments on the report amounted to violation of principles of natural justice. From the conjoined reading of the case laws, the Courts have consistently ruled that there cannot be any slightest departure from complying with the principles of natural justice, namely furnishing of copy of the inquiry Report before the disciplinary authority forms an opinion on the inquiry Report. Such mandate in the opinion of this Court is the sublimest hallmark of fair play and good conscience in action consistent with the constitutional imperatives.
Madras High Court Cites 41 - Cited by 0 - V Parthiban - Full Document

Rajveer Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 29 April, 2019

The Division Bench, thereafter, extracted paragraphs 26 to 29 and 30(iv) of the judgment in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and others Vs. B. Karunakar and others : (1993) 4 SCC 727, and held that the said judgment was binding on this Court under Article 141 of the Constitution, and it would apply irrespective of the Rules, which hold the field, and irrespective of whether the employee is a government servant or the employee is a non-governmental servant, public or private. The Division Bench, thereafter, held that, since the disciplinary authority had considered the inquiry report and proposed to visit the delinquent with the major punishment of removal from service, only thereafter the inquiry report was made available, and thereafter a show-cause notice was issued for securing an explanation against the proposed removal, the said procedure was in the teeth of the law laid down by the Supreme Court.
Uttarakhand High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - N S Dhanik - Full Document

Raj Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 24 January, 2025

(2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 789] , at pp. 38 and 39 where the Court held as under : (SCC para 21) '21. From the ratio laid down in B. Karunakar [ECIL v. B. Karunakar, (1993) 4 SCC 727 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 1184] it is explicitly clear that the doctrine of natural justice requires supply of a copy of the enquiry officer's report to the delinquent if such enquiry officer is other than the disciplinary authority. It is also clear that non-supply of report of the enquiry officer is in breach of natural justice. But it is equally clear that failure to supply a report of the enquiry officer to the delinquent employee would not ipso facto result in the proceedings being declared null and void and the order of punishment non est and ineffective. It is for the delinquent employee to plead and prove that non-supply of such report had caused prejudice and resulted in miscarriage of justice.
Patna High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - P B Bajanthri - Full Document

Raghunandan Yadav Aged 29 Years Son Of ... vs State Of Jharkhand Through Director ... on 26 November, 2024

Para-10:- Per contra, Mr Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank has defended the judgment of the Division Bench contending that there was no requirement of serving 17 the recorded reasons for disagreement by the disciplinary authority to the delinquent if such a decision was taken prior to the date of decision of ECIL [ECIL v. B. Karunakar, (1993) 4 SCC 727 :
Jharkhand High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - S Prasad - Full Document

Yugul Kishore Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 20 February, 2025

employees second was Ramzan Khan, (para 4,5,7,8,9, appointed followed; the ECIL v. B. 10,11 &12) before 42nd Karunakar, amendment.SC Amendment and Prabhat rejected the removed 2nd Kumar address claim, upheld show cause . technical the SC (3-judge defects amendment, bench) in K.C. (violation of and ruled that Asthana ruled natural justice), both CMD CIL the report where remand and CMD ECL unnecessary, is ordered to could initiate but SC (3- cure such proceedings, judge bench) in defects.(p but only CMD Mohd. 1,3,5,6,7,8) CIL could Ramzan Khan impose a major held it essential penalty (p if the inquiry 6,12-22). officer other than 2. No disciplinary application of authority. Non- mind- SC furnishing ruled that violates natural CMD ECL justice.The signed the constitution
Patna High Court - Orders Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - P B Bajanthri - Full Document

Uttarakhand Transport Corporation ... vs Sukhveer Singh on 10 November, 2017

4. It is contended on behalf of the Appellants that the impugned judgment is contrary to the law laid down in Managing Director ECIL Hyderabad & Ors. v. B. Karunakar & Ors. (supra). It is further submitted that a copy of the inquiry report was in fact supplied to the Respondent. The other point that was canvassed by the Appellants is that the Respondent neither pleaded nor proved that any prejudice was caused to him by the non-supply of the inquiry report prior to the issuance of show cause notice.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 37 - L N Rao - Full Document

Raghunandan Yadav Aged 29 Years Son Of ... vs State Of Jharkhand Through Director ... on 26 November, 2024

Para-10:- Per contra, Mr Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank has defended the judgment of the Division Bench contending that there was no requirement of serving 17 the recorded reasons for disagreement by the disciplinary authority to the delinquent if such a decision was taken prior to the date of decision of ECIL [ECIL v. B. Karunakar, (1993) 4 SCC 727 :
Jharkhand High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - S Prasad - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next