Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 26 (1.30 seconds)
Documents citing Laxmi Devi Sugar Mills vs Nand Kishore Singh on 4 October, 1956

Shambhoo Prasad Tiwari vs Madhya Pradesh State Agriculture ... on 6 September, 2023

9. The most important aspect of this matter is that when respondents issued the so called show cause notice dated 02.12.2013 (Annexure P/6), it was nowhere alleged that petitioner had suppressed any material fact or misrepresented in any manner. Thus, there was no such allegation in the show cause notice that petitioner was guilty of suppression or misrepresentation. This is trite that an employee cannot be subjected to coercive action or punishment for an allegation which was not a subject matter of charge-sheet/show cause notice (See: AIR 1957 SC 7, Laxmi Devi Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Nand Kishore Singh).
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - S Paul - Full Document

M.A. Krishnan vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 27 June, 2003

36. Further reliance has been placed on AIR 1957 SC 70, Laxmi Devi Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Nand Kishore Singh, particularly para 18. It was held in that case that the charge sheet which was furnished by the appellant to the respondent formed the basis of the enquiry which was held by the General Manager and the appellant could not be allowed to justify its action on any other grounds than those contained in the charge sheet. It was held that: "the respondent not having been charged with acts of insubordination which would have really justified the appellant and dismissing him from its employment (sic) the appellant could not take advantage of the same even though these acts could be brought home to him."
Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Gangadhar Pandey vs The Union Of India (Uoi) on 30 August, 1963

In support of their respective contentions, counsel for both parties have relied on the Supreme Court case in Laxmi Devi Sugar Mills v. Hand Kishore Singh, 1956 SCR 746: ((S) AIR 1957 SC 7). In that case, the steno-typist of the General Manager of Laxmi Devi Sugar Mills, the respondent in that case, was also the Vice-president of the Union of workers which was affiliated to the Indian National Trade Union Congress and was known as Chini Mills Mazdoor Sangh. After certain incidents, which it may not be necessary to mention here, the Vice-President of the Union (the respondent) made a speech criticising the attitude of the General Manager to the following effect:
Patna High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

K.C. Kohli vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 1 May, 2006

14. Counsel contended that the infirmities amounted to the inquiry not being based on any evidence. As a result the findings of the Inquiry Officer were vitiated. He relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court reported as Union of India V. H.C.Goel, , DCM V. Ludh Budh Singh, Page 1839 Central bank of India V. Prakash Chand Jain, Sher Bahadur V. UOI, UOI V. K.A. Kittu, 2001 (1) SCC 651 Laxmi Devi Sugar Millls V. Nand Kishore, Kuldeep Singh V. Comm. of Police .
Delhi High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - S R Bhat - Full Document

Management Of Krishnakali Tea Estate vs Akhil Bharatiya Chah Mazdoor Sangh & Anr on 10 September, 2004

But what is stated by us hereinabove would not in any manner, vitiate the ultimate justification of the dismissal order as held by the Labour Court. It is to be noticed that the charge memo issued to the workmen has in specific terms stated that the workmen concerned on 12th  13th October, 1980 entered the Manager's bungalow, armed with deadly weapons, caused damage to the property of the estate and illegally confined the Manager and others between 8.30 p.m. on 12th October till 3 a.m. on 13th October, 1980. This allegation as found in the charge memo has also been found to be proved by the Labour Court. Therefore, the question for our consideration is: whether this finding as alleged in the chargesheet by itself is sufficient to justify the order of dismissal without the support of the allegation of extortion. On this aspect of the case the decision of this Court in Laxmi Devi Sugar Mills Ltd. (supra) will not assist the respondents' case. In that case, the only charge against the workman was that he instigated the other workmen to demand the removal of the General Manager which charge was not proved in the enquiry, then the management tried to justify the removal by adducing evidence on other allegations in regard to which there was no charge, in those factual situation this Court held such justification based uncharged allegation was impermissible.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 163 - Full Document

R.Sivarajan Chettiar vs The Kerala Khadi And Village Industries ... on 1 June, 2011

10. The learned counsel for the petitioner next contended that the allegations raised against the petitioner in the memo of charges do not constitute any misconduct, as provided for in the Kerala Khadi and Village Industries Board Employees' Conduct Regulations ["the Conduct Regulations" for short]. He placed reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in Rasiklal v. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation [AIR 1985 SC 504], A.L.Kalra v. Project & Equipment Corporation of India Ltd. [1984 (2) LLJ 186 (SC)], Glaxo Laboratories (I) Limited v. Labour Court, Meerut and others [1984 (1) LLJ 16 (SC)], Workmen of Lakheri Cement Works Ltd. v. The Associated Cement Companies Ltd. [(1969) II SCWR 237] and Laxmi Devi Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Nand Kishore Singh [1956 (2) LLJ 439 (SC)] in support of the said contention. According to the learned counsel, the allegations would only constitute offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code for W.P.(C).No.6908/2013 9 which the Board can only set the criminal law in motion. It was pointed out that the Board can also institute appropriate proceedings for recovery of the loss, if any, caused by the petitioner. According to the learned counsel, the Board as an employer can initiate disciplinary proceedings against an employee only for such acts of commission or omission as are included in the Conduct Regulations. It was also pointed out that the Conduct Regulations do not contemplate a misconduct of this nature. It was, however, conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Conduct Regulations provide that every employee of the Board shall, at all times, maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty. According to the learned counsel, the said general statement is not sufficient to confer authority on the Board to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner on the so-called misconducts alleged against him in the show cause notice.
Kerala High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Sanjay Singh vs The Director General Of Police Police ... on 9 May, 2017

Jh lat; flag Jh vfu:) flag vkjksih dzeakd 01 iz-vkj- 859 1- pktZ fyLV xkSlokjk esa cpr lkexzh dh dher :i;s vkjksih dzekad 02 iz-vkj- 738 4]02]763¾00 n'kZ;k x;k tcfd cSysal lhV ds vuqlkj lkexzh dh 1- ekg 08@09 cSysal lhV ds dher :i;s 260732¾35 ik;h xbZ xkslokjk esa dqy iawth :i;s tks fd :i;s 142030¾65 T;knk 422865¾60 iznf'kZr dh xbZ] vafdr dj xkSlokjk rS;kj dj tcfd ekg 07@09 dh dqy iwath foRrh; vfu;ferk djukA :i;s 5]28]375¾00 crkbZ xbZ] ftlesa buds }kjk :i;s 2- MsM Lvkd jftLVj ds cSysal 1]05]510¾40 lh/ks de djrs gq;s lhV ist dza- 82 ,oa 83 esa vafdr ekg 08@09 ds xkslokjs esa vafdr lkexzh dk ;ksx dher fd;k x;k rFkk mDr /kujkf'k dh 40204¾00 gS] cSyaasl lhV ds deh fd;s tkus dk dksbZ Hkh xkSlokjk esa jkf'k 41974¾00 mi;qZDr dkj.k cSysal lhV esa dh MsM LVkd lkexzh fy[kh x;h mYys[k u djuk vkSj u gh ofj"B gS] tks ewy dher ls :i;s vf/kdkfj;ksa ds laKku esa ykuk] 1770¾00 vf/kd vafdr fd;k x;k foRrh; vfu;ferrk dk ifjpk;d gSA gSA blh izdkj ekg 07@09 dh cSysal lhV o LVkd jftLVj esa vafdr lkexzh dk feyku u gksuk ?kksj ykijokgh dk ifjpk;d gSA A careful reading of the allegations against the aforesaid employees makes it clear that allegations against them are relating to negligence and financial irregularities. The Inquiry Officer in his report found that the charge alleged against the said employees are established. The disciplinary authority by order dated 23.4.2012 found that the allegations which are established against the petitioner are relating to financial irregularity and embezzlement (xcu). Accordingly, the punishment of dismissal from service was inflicted on the petitioner. In addition, the alleged amount of embezzlement Rs.1,42,030.65/- was directed to be recovered from the petitioner. This is settled in law that an employee cannot be punished for an allegation which is not subject matter of the charge-sheet. This view was taken by the Supreme Court way back in Laxmi Devi Sugar Mills Vs. Nand Kishore Singh-AIR 1957 SC-7.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next