Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 662 (1.70 seconds)
Documents citing Chairman-Cum-M.D.,Coal India Ld.& Ors vs Ananta Saha & Ors on 6 April, 2011

H K Sharma vs M/O Commerce on 31 August, 2018

In Coal India Vs Anantha Saha (supra), the CMD approved the notings of the Officer on Special Duty (OSD) proposing revival of disciplinary proceedings for denovo enquiry which required issue of fresh charge sheet. The Apex Court held that the ; 14 0.A.No.375/2017, CMD had merely appended the Signature without applying his mind and without recording any reason. In the present case the matter was examined in great detail at every designated level of the respondent department and on that basts the DA approved the proposal for initiating disciplinary proceedings against the applicant. This is quite different from a note of an "OSD" who Provides assistance to the CMD and who cannot be called a designated authority in the manner that a US/DS/JS/AS etc in a Ministry, who are charged with the responsibility to process files as designated authorities to assist the Department/ Minister/DA to obtain approvals of competent authority in all matters, statutory or administrative, Hence the said judgment is fully distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the present OA and hence it cannot be heid that the charge memo is liable to be set aside from this perspective or this ground alone. However, notwithstanding the above conclusion of the Tribunal that it cannot be Said that there was no application of mind to the merits of the case, the non fulfillment of the legal requirement, although technical, of two stage decision making, the impugned order is not cured or devoid of the above ills.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rajendra Singh Parmar vs Union Of India on 25 April, 2024

14. Further, as it has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Chairman-Cum-M.D., Coal India Ltd. & Others vs. Anant Saha (supra) that if the initial action is not in consonance with law then the directions for issuance of fresh charge sheet and the order of penalty passed thereupon cannot be said to be sanctified, therefore, issuance of fresh charge sheet and the order of penalty vide Annexures P/2 and P/8 respectively are also nor proper and therefore, they are also hereby set aside.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - M R Phadke - Full Document

The State Of Bihar And Ors vs Md. Shafique Ansari on 1 November, 2022

6. That apart, recently Apex Court in the case of The State of Uttar Pradesh and Others vs. Prabhat Kumar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 736 reiterated the Apex Court's decision in the case of Managing Director, ECIL V. B Karunakar reported in (1993) 4 SCC 727 read with Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Limited & Ors. V. Ananta Saha and Others reported in (2011) 5 SCC 142.
Patna High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - P B Bajanthri - Full Document

Bandana Kumari vs Posts on 7 March, 2025

b. Both these applicants are to be reinstated or they have to be placed under suspension and further applicants are entitled to 27 OA/104/2023 , OA 703/2022, OA 632/2022, OA 595/2022, OA 592/2022, OA 591/2022, OA 313/2022, OA 210/2022, OA 168/2022, OA 784/2022 subsistence allowance from the date of removal till completion of a fresh enquiry this has to be calculated and disbursed at the earliest and further insofar as regulating the intervening period from the date of reinstatement or suspension till passing a fresh order in fresh enquiry is required to be decided in accordance with the relevant provision of law as to whether applicants are entitled to regularization of those period and it all depends on final order to be passed by the Disciplinary Authority in a fresh inquiry, the above principle is required to be taken note of in the light of Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of ECIL vs. B. Karunakaran reported in (1993) 4 SCC 727 and Chairman-cum-Managing Coal India Ltd. vs. Ananta Saha and Ors. reported in (2011) 5 SCC 142.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Patna Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Manoj Kumar vs Posts on 7 March, 2025

b. Both these applicants are to be reinstated or they have to be placed under suspension and further applicants are entitled to 27 OA/104/2023 , OA 703/2022, OA 632/2022, OA 595/2022, OA 592/2022, OA 591/2022, OA 313/2022, OA 210/2022, OA 168/2022, OA 784/2022 subsistence allowance from the date of removal till completion of a fresh enquiry this has to be calculated and disbursed at the earliest and further insofar as regulating the intervening period from the date of reinstatement or suspension till passing a fresh order in fresh enquiry is required to be decided in accordance with the relevant provision of law as to whether applicants are entitled to regularization of those period and it all depends on final order to be passed by the Disciplinary Authority in a fresh inquiry, the above principle is required to be taken note of in the light of Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of ECIL vs. B. Karunakaran reported in (1993) 4 SCC 727 and Chairman-cum-Managing Coal India Ltd. vs. Ananta Saha and Ors. reported in (2011) 5 SCC 142.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Patna Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next