Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 222 (0.65 seconds)
Documents citing State Bank Of India And Others vs D.C. Aggarwal And Another on 13 October, 1992

Syndicate Bank vs R.G. Bhide on 10 March, 2003

16. The learned single judge placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State Bank of India v. D. C. Aggarwal (supra) and an unreported judgment of this Court in the case of Govindarajan v. Canara Bank (W.P. No. 6558 of 1993, dated June 18, 1998) has held that non-supply of a copy of the report containing the recommendation of the Central Vigilance Commission to the delinquent-employee vitiated the enquiry and the final order made by the disciplinary authority.
Karnataka High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - K Ramanna - Full Document

Vipul Raj vs Indian Council Of Agricultural on 20 April, 2009

In the judicial precedent of State Bank of India Vs. D.C. Aggarwal and another (supra), the report of CVC contained fifty pages, in which all aspects of the case were discussed. The communication of the CVCs advice to the charged officer would be meaningful only if it is detailed and speaking advice. We have observed in several cases that the Union Public Service Commissions advice is always detailed and gives reasons for its particular advice. There is no reason why CVC should give such non-speaking advice.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

R.P. Gautam vs The Oil And Natural Gas Corporation Ltd on 7 March, 2011

31. The learned single Judge also observed that in D.C. Aggarwal case, the authorities had relied upon the recommendations of CVC, which were not at all disclosed to the delinquent officer. On the fact situation in the present case, the learned single Judge held that the authorities concerned have not looked at the advice or recommendations of CVC before taking any of the impugned decisions. The aforesaid judgment was distinguishable as it did not apply in the facts of this case.
Bombay High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - P Majmudar - Full Document

Vijay Malhan vs Uoi & Ors. on 13 October, 2022

"The judgment of State Bank of India vs. D.C. Aggarwal is not applicable to the facts of the present case. It is nowhere the contention of the respondent that DA acted upon the two stage advice of CVC. The petitioner has himself admitted receipt in para 2 of his written arguments that CVO had exonerated him (Page 47-48) in first stage. In the instant case, the Bank had only referred the matter to the Chief Vigilance Officer for 2nd stage advice after sending of disagreement note to CSE and the Vigilance Officer, as noticed above, had not directed that a particular punishment should be imposed. Therefore, on the ground urged by the petitioner, the order of the disciplinary authority cannot be faulted"
Delhi High Court Cites 41 - Cited by 2 - C D Singh - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next