Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 35 (0.56 seconds)
Documents citing Union Of India & Ors vs B.K. Srivastava on 24 October, 1997

Union Of India (Uoi), Through The ... vs Naresh K. Gupta, Chief Engineer ... on 5 November, 2004

11. Shri Sureshkumar also brought to our notice that the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Union of India v. D.K.D.K.D.K. Shrivastava,Shrivastava,Shrivastava, dated 24.12.2001 cannot be made applicable in the instant case, as ultimately the Supreme Court had merely rejected the Special Leave Petition and not confirmed the said judgment.
Bombay High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 1 - S Radhakrishnan - Full Document

Union vs M.C.Pandit on 16 June, 2008

9. As regards the alternative submission made by learned Standing Counsel on the basis of issuance of chargesheet in a departmental enquiry in November 2002, it appears that the departmental enquiry is still pending and no decision is as yet taken in the said proceeding though, according to the instructions received by learned Standing Counsel, enquiry report of the enquiry officer has already been received by the department. We do not, however, propose to examine this aspect any further because all that we propose to do is to confirm the judgment of the Tribunal. Petitioner No.2 will communicate the downgrading as explained in this judgment and the judgment in the case of Union of India v. A.P.Srivastava within one month from today and the respondent herein will submit his representation to such communication within a fortnight from the date of receipt of the remarks. The competent authority shall, thereafter, decide such representation within one month. If, as a result of this exercise, the overall grading of the officer for the relevant years changes necessitating reconsideration by the DPC, meeting of the DPC shall be called to reconsider the officer's case in accordance with law. The entire exercise shall be completed within six months from the date of the receipt of a copy of this judgment. Petition is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim stay granted earlier shall stand vacated forthwith.
Gujarat High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - M S Shah - Full Document

Gupteshwar Prasad Sinha vs ) State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 July, 2008

17) The case of Union of India and others Vs. K. Shrivastava,3 cited by Mr. Thakur to the effect that the Tribunal could not sit in appeal against the orders of the Disciplinary and Appellate Authorities in exercise of its powers of judicial review, is not applicable to the facts of the present case. If there is serious error apparent on the face of record, by not following the substantial procedure in the inquiry, the judicial review is permissible. Their Lordships observed that "it is no part of the function of the Tribunal to substitute its own decision when enquiry is held in accordance with rules and punishment is imposed by the circumstances and which it is entitled to impose." In the case on hand, the enquiry was irregular as the provision of Rule 14 (11) of Rules 1966 was not followed.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - S K Agnihotri - Full Document

Narayan Ch. Das vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 12 January, 2007

Moreover, when it is proved that the Disciplinary Authority duly considered the report of the Enquiry Officer and examined the whole of enquiry proceeding and being satisfied that the charges are proved imposed penalty of dismissal and Appellate Authority also being satisfied with the order of the Disciplinary Authority that the delinquent officer was guilty of charge and upholds the penalty of dismissal imposed on him, in that case there is no abuse of power of Disciplinary and Appellate Authority and Tribunal in such cases cannot sit over the enquiry report and dismissal order (Union of India and Anr. v. B.K. Srivastava ).
Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 13 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

R.B. Kamble vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 23 July, 2004

17. We have gone through the inquiry proceedings in judicial review, we are conscious of the limitation of the Tribunal that we cannot go into the sufficiency or insufficiency of the evidence and we cannot reappreciate the evidence adduced in the inquiry. The Apex Court in Union of India v. B.K. Srivastava, 1998 SCSLJ 74 held the Tribunal cannot sit in appeal against the order of Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority in exercise of powers of judicial review.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 17 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Amar Babu Srivastava vs State Of U.P. And Others on 13 September, 1999

With regard to the adequacy of the evidence and recording of the finding on guilt, the Apex Court, in the case of Union of India v. B. K. Srivastava, JT 1997 (8) SC 573, has observed that the Court will not interfere if it is urged that the evidence against the employee is not sufficient to impose any punishment. A distinction, however, has to be drawn between total absence of evidence and cases where there is some evidence. If there is some evidence then the Court or Tribunal in exercise of its powers of Judicial review cannot sit as a Court of appeal and interfere with the punishment by reassessing the evidence on its own.
Allahabad High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kamlesh Prasad vs High Court Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 September, 2012

20- That apart, the Supreme Court has laid down the principle in this regard in the following cases: B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India, 1995(6) SCC 749; Government of Tamil Nadu and another Vs. A. Rajapandian, AIR 1995 SC 561; State of MP and another Vs. Jagdish Prasad Yadav and another, (2006) 4 MPLJ 362; Union of India Vs. B.K. Shrivastava, AIR 1998 SC 300; and, Damoh Panna Sagar Rural Regional Bank and Another Vs. Munna Lal Jain, (2005) 10 SCC 84.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Vinod Kumar Shukla vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 November, 2012

In this regard, the scope of judicial review into a decision making process undertaken in a departmental inquiry and the principle to be followed for appreciating a finding of the Enquiry Officer is laid down in the case of B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India, 1995(6) SCC 749; Union of India Vs. B.K. Shrivastava, AIR 1998 SC 300; and, Apparel Export Promotion Council Vs. A.K. Chopra, 1991 (1) LLJ 962, may be taken note of. It has been consistently held by the Supreme Court in various cases that a finding of guilt based on due appreciation of the evidence cannot be interfered with until 6 Writ Petition No : 14939 of 2006(S) Vinod Kumar Shukla Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Shri Suresh Kumar Baliyan vs Union Of India on 3 December, 2012

9. The above decision was upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP No. 11801/87 decided on 8.12.1987 titled Union of India v. A.K. Srivastava and was relied upon by Jodhpur Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 326/89 (All India Non SC/ST Employees Association (Railway) Bikaner and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. decided on 20.10.1992). It was held that reservation for SCs and STs is not applicable in the case of upgradation of existing posts. Respondents were directed to consider the applicants therein for being put against the upgraded posts in their respective cadre in accordance with the rules of seniority subject to the rejection of unfit and that no reservation will be applicable to the posts in question.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next