Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 153 (1.62 seconds)
Documents citing Union Of India vs Alok Kumar on 16 April, 2010

Bhupinder Singh vs Bank Of Baroda & Ors. on 27 April, 2018

17. He answers the judgments of Haryana Financial Corporation and Anr. vs. Kailash Chandra Ahuja 92008) 9 SCC 31, Union of India vs. Vishambhar Dass Dogra (2009) 13 SCC 102 and Union of India vs. Alok Kumar (2010) 5 SCC 349 relied upon by the respondents to contend that prejudice has to be not only pleaded but also proved, and the petitioner further wrongly alleged that it is not the case of the W.P.(C) No. 17579/2006 Page 16 of 70 petitioner anywhere before the Inquiry Officer that his memory is impaired on account of delay, by stating this allegation is wrong the petitioner has specifically stated even in the explanation submitted to the respondent in the year 1997 that as the transactions are 5-6 years old "he does not remember vaguely remember the details pertaining to the said transaction." Further the judgments relied upon by the respondent bank are not applicable to the present case. The case of Haryana Financial Corporation as well as Bishambhar Das Dogra cases (supra) are the cases relating to non supply of the Inquiry report and in both the cases except for stating that non supply of Inquiry report has caused prejudice, no effort was made to show what prejudice was caused. Thus on the facts of those cases on a finding that the employees has failed to show even to the Supreme Court what prejudice was caused the Court has held that violation becomes fatal only if it has caused prejudice to the person concerned.
Delhi High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - V K Rao - Full Document

Chairman Board Of Management M.P. Bhoj ... vs Dr. Praveen Jain on 29 July, 2020

12. Coming back to the merits of the case, we must point out that the issue is no longer res integra. The question of validity of appointment of a retired officer from a panel prepared for appointment of Inquiry Officers for holding departmental inquiry was examined in great detail in a recent decision of this Court in Union of India & Ors. vs. Alok Kumar, 2010 (5) SCC 349. It may be clarified that the decision in Alok Kumar was rendered in a case under rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 and the present case arises from Rule 14(2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules. But it needs to be pointed out that the provisions of Rule 9(2) of Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 dealing with the appointment of inquiry officers are in pari materia with Rule 14(2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - S Yadav - Full Document

Tata Motors Limited vs Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory ... on 22 August, 2014

In Union of India Vs. Alok Kumar's case reliance was placed on S.L. Kapoor's case, which followed the principle in RIDGE VS. BALDWIN (1964 AC 40, 68: 1963 2 AII ER 66, 73) , wherein it was further observed that "if upon admitted or indisputable facts only one conclusion was possible, then in such a case that principle of natural justice was in itself prejudice would not apply. Thus every case would have to be examined on its own merits and keeping in view the statutory rules applying to such departmental proceedings."
Appellate Tribunal For Electricity Cites 35 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

P.Vetrivel vs Mr.P.Dhanabal

(xvi)Alok Kumar case arises from the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow) which upheld an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal which set aside an order of punishment due to non supply of documents. The respondent was charged and dismissed from service upon a report by a retired officer. The Supreme Court upheld the doctrine of defacto prejudice and held that prejudice should be looked at on a case to case basis and should exist as a matter of fact.
Madras High Court Cites 128 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bishnu Ram vs Uco Bank & Ors on 30 August, 2011

Another ground of attack is that non-supply of enquiry report to the petitioner has caused prejudice to him. Law, in this regard, has been well settled by a recent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India versus Alok Kumar (supra) wherein a distinction has been drawn between the apprehended prejudice and the de facto prejudice. The Court, while exercising power of judicial review in such matter, has to interfere only if the petitioner/delinquent is able to demonstrate a de facto prejudice. I have already found on perusal of the DPR (Annexure-B to the supplementary counter affidavit) and the enquiry report (Annexure- A to the counter affidavit) that the charges have been held proved (some of them partially) by bringing on record the relevant documentation got prepared by the petitioner as Branch Manager as also the relevant circulars/guidelines of the Bank. Those 9 documents were brought on record in presence of the petitioner and/or his defence representative whereafter he was given an opportunity to adduce oral/documentary evidence. The petitioner took a stand that no oral evidence was deemed necessary in the matter and that he would make his submissions based on the documents on record of the proceeding. In order to buttress the view taken by me that, considering the allegation, the documents brought on record were to be considered in order to find or hold that charges have been proved or not. I deem it apposite to extract some portion(s) of DPR (Annexure-B to the supplementary counter affidavit) by way of example. They are as follows:
Patna High Court - Orders Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - K K Mandal - Full Document

Kumar Dharmendra Nr. Singh vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 16 June, 2014

(v) The judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Union of India Vs. Alok Kumar (supra) as relied upon on behalf of the respondent is of no avail for the reason that in the present case, it is the stand of the respondents that second show cause notice was issued while differing with the report of the Inquiry Officer. In such circumstance the disciplinary authority was obliged to supply to the petitioner a copy of the said report. Non-supply of the enquiry report along with the said second show cause notice, which according to the respondent was issued after differing with the report of the enquiry officer, would have certainly prejudiced the petitioner's case which has been pleaded also in the writ application.
Patna High Court - Orders Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - C S Singh - Full Document

Shri Narain Ram Bhardwaj vs The Union Of India Through Its Secretary on 20 May, 2011

In SCC para 45 of the judgment, the Court observed as follows: (Alok Kumar case, SCC p. 367) 45. Reliance placed by the respondents upon the judgment of this Court in Ravi Malik is hardly of any assistance to them. Firstly, the facts and the rules falling for consideration before this Court in that case were entirely different. Secondly, the Court was concerned with the expression public servant appearing in Rule 23(b) of the Service Rules and Regulations, 1982 of the National Film Development Corporation. The Court expressed the view that public servant should be understood in its common parlance and a retired officer would not fall within the meaning of public servant, as by virtue of his retirement he loses the characteristics of being a public servant. That is not the expression with which we are concerned in the present case. Rule 9(2) as well as Section 3 of the Act have used a very different expression i.e. other authority and person/persons. In other words, the absence of the words public servant of the Government are conspicuous by their very absence. Thus, both these expressions, even as per the dictum of the Court should be interpreted as understood in the common parlance.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next