Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 342 (0.54 seconds)
Documents citing K. R. Deb vs Collector Of Central Excise, Shillong on 7 April, 1971

Dr. Anil Kumar Mukhi vs The Chief Soil Survey Officer And Ors. on 18 November, 2005

In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K.R. Deb v. Collector of Central Excise (supra) the entire proceedings initiated are vitiated. The applicant has also contended that the applicant had objected for de novo inquiry. The applicant had participated in the de novo inquiry under protest. The representation was considered, but the objections raised by the applicant were rejected. Even the report of the Fact Finding Committee was not supplied. The respondents have not explained the delay in concluding the inquiry.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 23 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

V. Balaswamy, vs The Government Of India, on 1 November, 2022

18. Taking into consideration the law laid down by the Apex Court referred to and discussed above in Krushnakath B. Parmar v. Union of India & Another reported in (2012) 3 SCC 178, M.B. Bijlani vs. Union of India and others reported in (2006) 5 SCC 88, and K.R. Deb v. The Collector of Central Excise, Shillong reported in (1971) 2 SCC 102) and also the averments made in paras 8, 13 and 17 of the Counter Affidavit filed by the 4th Respondent and also taking into consideration the law laid down in the judgements relied upon by the Counsel for the Petitioner the writ petition is liable to be allowed as prayed for.
Telangana High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - S Nanda - Full Document

V Kannathasan vs M/O Finance on 10 January, 2024

12. We tend to agree with the applicant that the enquiry conducted after the matter was remitted to the IA should have constituted fresh enquiry with revised charge memo along with fresh list of relied upon documents and witnesses to prove the same. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.R. Das Vs Collector of Central Excise, Shillong (1971 AIR 1447, 1971 SCC 375), Union of India Vs P. Thayagarajan, (1999 (1) SCC 733, and, Union of India Vs K.D. Pandey, (2002 (10 SCC 471) has held that the re-examination would constitute a fresh inquiry and not further inquiry. This Tribunal cannot evaluate the evidence laid in the trial court or comment on the observations of the court nor scrutinize the evidence in the enquiry. But, the departmental proceedings in further enquiry, based on the trial court's orders, where observations of the Trial Court are analysed, commented upon and negated, are totally beyond the competence of the IA /DA. The entire process adopted by the IA is found to be utterly in violation of the principles of natural justice. The point made by the applicant that, after signing the report, the IO becomes functus officio, and, thereafter, making any modification in the report is illegal, is duly considered taken note of. In this case, without production of or examination of fresh witnesses and without giving the charged officer any opportunity of cross examination in respect of fresh evidence against him, the Inquiry Authority has partially overturned his own findings, which he had arrived at earlier where he had totally exonerated the applicant.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ramesh Kumar vs The Union Of India & Ors on 1 February, 2018

Patna High Court CWJC No.10481 of 2012 12 In the said judgment the Court has placed reliance on the decision passed in K.R. Deb vs. The Collector of Central Excise, Shillong (supra). In both the judgments, considering the particular facts and circumstances of the case, the Court has held that the de novo enquiry should not be directed to be conducted. If any defect is found to be committed by the Inquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority can point out the same and directed for further enquiry.
Patna High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - S Pandey - Full Document

V Kannathasan vs M/O Finance on 10 January, 2024

12. We tend to agree with the applicant that the enquiry conducted after the matter was remitted to the IA should have constituted fresh enquiry with revised charge memo along with fresh list of relied upon documents and witnesses to prove the same. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.R. Das Vs Collector of Central Excise, Shillong (1971 AIR 1447, 1971 SCC 375), Union of India Vs P. Thayagarajan, (1999 (1) SCC 733, and, Union of India Vs K.D. Pandey, (2002 (10 SCC 471) has held that the re-examination would constitute a fresh inquiry and not further inquiry. This Tribunal cannot evaluate the evidence laid in the trial court or comment on the observations of the court nor scrutinize the evidence in the enquiry. But, the departmental proceedings in further enquiry, based on the trial court's orders, where observations of the Trial Court are analysed, commented upon and negated, are totally beyond the competence of the IA /DA. The entire process adopted by the IA is found to be utterly in violation of the principles of natural justice. The point made by the applicant that, after signing the report, the IO becomes functus officio, and, thereafter, making any modification in the report is illegal, is duly considered taken note of. In this case, without production of or examination of fresh witnesses and without giving the charged officer any opportunity of cross examination in respect of fresh evidence against him, the Inquiry Authority has partially overturned his own findings, which he had arrived at earlier where he had totally exonerated the applicant.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The State Of Jharkhand vs Raj Kishore Prasad on 23 December, 2025

28. This Court is having with the opinion that by flouting or defying the settled position of law in one way or the other the delinquent employee is being favoured as the facts of the present case that even though the appeal has been preferred on the pretext that the nature of allegation against the delinquent employee, the writ petitioner-respondent, is serious but even then the order of punishment has been quashed reason is that the wrong procedure has been followed by conducting consecutive enquiry that too the second enquiry being the de novo one which is not permissible as has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court way back in the year 1971 in the case of in the case of K.R. Deb v. Collector of Central Excise, Shillong, (Supra).
Jharkhand High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - S N Prasad - Full Document

Binod Kerketa vs Union Of India on 9 June, 2022

14. The present case is not a case where there has been any favorable enquiry report in favour of the petitioner and the disciplinary authority ordered for fresh enquiry. In the present case, the proposed action for minor penalty , which was initiated vide aforesaid memorandum dated 31.05.2002 was never taken to a logical end ,although the charge was proved and tentatively it was decided to impose minor penalty, in as much as, by a subsequent order, the said memorandum dated 31.05.2002 was itself withdrawn with a clear stipulation that the charges called for imposition of major penalty and a proceeding under Rule 14 of the aforesaid Rules of 1965, for imposition of major penalty, was required to be initiated. Thus, the charge was not dropped, but the proceeding for imposition of minor 6 penalty under aforesaid Rule 16 of Rules of 1965, was dropped with the aforesaid guidance to initiate proceedings under Rule 14 of Rules of 1965, for imposition of major penalty. Thus the judgment reported in (1971) 2 SCC 102 (K.R. DEB versus The Collector of Central Excise, Shillong), does not apply to the facts and circumstances of this case and does not help the petitioner in any manner whatsoever. The first point raised by the petitioner is decided against the petitioner.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - A R Choudhary - Full Document

Anand Kumar Guleria vs M/O Railways on 22 November, 2018

15. This aspect of the matter has also been considered by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. vs. Shashi Bhushan & Another ( 2011(1) R.S.J. Page 506) where ( O.A.NO. 063/00054/2017 ) 12 ( Anand Kumar Guleria vs. UOI & Ors.) Division Bench after noticing the judgment relied upon by the applicant in the case of K.R.Deb(supra) and Union of India versus P.Thayagaraian ( 1999(1) S.C.C. Page 733) has come to the conclusion that if the disciplinary authority comes with definite finding that there is procedural lapse in conducting the enquiry, then he can order de novo enquiry under Rule 15(1) of the 1965 Rules.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

S.Mahesh vs The Principal Secretary To Government on 28 November, 2025

22. The Apex Court in the case of the K.R.Deb Vs. The Collector of Central Excise, Shillong reported in 1971 (2) SCC 102, considering Rule 15 (1) of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, having held that there can only be one enquiry, the respondents could not have issued the second charge memo dated 03.06.2019. Thus, the impugned proceedings would have to be held as vitiated and bad in law.
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next