Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 99 (1.43 seconds)
Documents citing B. D. Gupta vs State Of Haryana on 18 September, 1972

Shyam Sunder Mal vs Rajasthan High Court on 1 August, 2000

14. Reference in this connection may be made to decision of the Apex Court in B.D. Gupta v. State of Haryana. . In this case the Court made it clear that where enquiry is dropped or charge was withdrawn, the case cannot fall in the category of 'not fully exonerated' because by withdrawing proceedings in respect of one of the charge Govt. made it impossible for applicant to get him fully exonerated. The case arose under Rule 7.3 of Punjab Civil Service Rule which was para materia with Rule 54 of the Fundamental Rules which provided that
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 18 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Prof. Shashikant B. Kulkarni vs The Principal, Bpcs College Of Physical ... on 5 May, 2008

23. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner strenuously contended that the show cause notice dated 13.7.2004 issued by the management was not in consonance with the judgment delivered by the Supreme Court in the case of B.D. Gupta v. State of Haryana . Relying on the observations of the Supreme Court made particularly in paragraph 9 of the aforesaid judgement, it was contended on behalf of the petitioner that show cause notice issued by the management in the present case does not show any application of mind and that it is not a "focussed" notice inasmuch as it is very vague and does not call upon the petitioner to show cause in respect of specific crystalised points/issues. It was submitted that the show cause notice was more in the nature of a forwarding letter rather than a specific notice calling upon the petitioner to show cause on specific aspects of the matter set out in the said notice.
Bombay High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 3 - A A Kumbhakoni - Full Document

Dr. Lakshmi Narain Singh vs The State Of Bihar And Ors. on 21 September, 1987

Mr. K. D. Chatterjee pointed out that the relevant Rules of the Punjab Civil Services Rules in B. D. Gupta's case (supra) were identical to the Bihar Rules and while interpreting the same the Supreme Court in paragraph 14 of its judgment held that the appellant was entitled to a reasonable opportunity to show cause which had been wrongly denied him. The court then proceeded to examine the facts and circumstances of the case and in that background set aside the High Court's decision against the appellant and quashed the impugned order. This decision once more emphasised the rule of audi alteram partem, and enforced the principle of natural justice, but it nowhere said that in every case of reinstatement of a Government servant in services he shall be entitled to full salary.
Patna High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 7 - L M Sharma - Full Document

Bhupani Venkata Naidu vs The State Of Ap on 20 March, 2021

In view of the judgment of the Apex Court (referred supra), the memo impugned in the writ petition is illegal, arbitrary as the same was passed without giving an opportunity to the petitioner and failure to consider the representation strictly in accordance with F.R.54-B is a seriously illegality. Hence, the respondents are directed to consider the representation of the petitioner strictly in terms of judgment of the Apex Court in B.D.Gupta v. State of Haryana (referred supra) and pass appropriate order in accordance with law, only after giving him an opportunity of hearing to make out his case.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - M S Murthy - Full Document

S.N.D.P. Yogam Training College vs National Council For Teacher Education on 19 October, 2020

In Shri B. D. Gupta v. State of Haryana [(1973) 3 SCC 149] the Apex Court was dealing with a case in which disciplinary proceedings was initiated against the appellant under the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1952. There was two distinct charges made against the appellant, which were based on allegations that the appellant had taken illegal gratification. One of the contentions taken was that, the appellant did not get a reasonable opportunity to reply to the show cause notice dated 26.10.1966 on the basis of which he had been censured by the Government, inasmuch as, the notice was too vague to enable him to give an effective reply. The Apex Court noticed that, the only ground on which the Government proposed to censure the appellant is the fact that the appellant's explanation dated 18.12.1956 in reply to the statement of charges and allegations had been found WP(C).No.21576 OF 2020(V) 32 unsatisfactory by Government. The appellant's explanation of 18.12.1956 which is said to have been found unsatisfactory by Government was a reply not only to Charge 1(a) but also to Charge 1(b). Of these two charges, so far as Charge 1(a) is concerned the appellant had been completely exonerated in October, 1958. There is nothing, however, in the show cause notice of 26.10.1966 to indicate clearly that the dissatisfaction of Government with the appellant's reply of 18.12.1956 had nothing to do with Charge 1(a). The show cause notice merely states in vague general terms that the appellant's reply to the charges and allegations was unsatisfactory. Even if it is assumed, though there is no reasonable ground for this assumption, that Government did not have in mind the contents of Charge 1(a) while serving this show cause notice, there is nothing in the show cause notice to give any indication that the particular allegations regarding which the appellant had failed to furnish a satisfactory explanation were referable only to Charge 1(b). The notice is vague on other grounds as well. As one reads the first paragraph of the notice, the questions that at once assail one's mind are many: In what WP(C).No.21576 OF 2020(V) 33 way was the explanation of the appellant unsatisfactory? Which part of the appellant's explanation was so unsatisfactory? On what materials did the Government think that the appellant's explanation was unsatisfactory? It is essential for a show cause notice to indicate the precise scope of the notice and also to indicate the points on which the officer concerned is expected to give a reply. The show cause notice in the instant case did not give the appellant any real opportunity to defend himself against the complaint that his previous explanation of 18.12.1956 had been unsatisfactory. The appellant did not, therefore, get any chance at all to show that he did not deserve a censure upon his conduct. Before the Apex Court, it was contended on behalf of the State that, since the appellant was aware of the charge and also aware of the reply he had given to the charges made against him, it was enough for Government to tell him that his answer was unsatisfactory. Since the show cause notice really pointed this out and mentioned that the very lenient sentence of censure upon the appellant's conduct was going to be imposed, there was nothing further that Government could be expected to do in this case. WP(C).No.21576 OF 2020(V) 34 Rejecting the said contention, the Apex Court held that, it is manifestly clear that the show cause notice was too vague to permit the appellant to deal with it effectively and that consequently the order of censure passed on him is bad and liable to be struck down.
Kerala High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - A Narendran - Full Document

R.R. Jain (Retired Principal Judge City ... vs State Of Gujarat on 6 July, 2022

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner harped upon the contention that the provisions of sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 152 of the Bombay Civil Services Rules were independent and not inter-connected. Therefore, a show cause notice clearly indicating the formation of an opinion regarding grant or denial of full pay and allowances for the period of suspension, was required to be given. The learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in B.D. Gupta Vs. State of Haryana, reported in 1972 AIR SC 2472 and emphasized the observation therein that it was essential for a show cause notice to indicate the precise scope of the notice and also to indicate points on which officer concerned is expected to give a reply. These observations were made in the context of the show cause notice on the basis of which the delinquent was censured in the facts of that case.
Gujarat High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - S G Gokani - Full Document

Ksl And Industries Ltd. vs The Chairman, The Securities And ... on 30 September, 2003

He further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in B D Gupta's case relied on by the Appellant in support of the contention that the show cause notice is inadequate, Shri Desai submitted that it was a case relating to the notice sent to a labourer, a lay man, but that is not the case of the Appellant which is a professional with adequate expertise available at its command and it was in a position to understand the charges clearly.
Securities Appellate Tribunal Cites 18 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next