Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 59 (2.00 seconds)
Documents citing Tarsem Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 5 December, 2008

A. K. Jain S/O P. R. Jain vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi Through on 31 August, 2009

In Sahdeo Singh (supra), the reason dispensing with the enquiry was held proper. The facts of that case reveal that Sahdeo Singh and others were on duty as Rakshaks (guards) og 733 UP goods train. They colluded with other officials in the said train and certain other miscreants by assisting them in the theft of large quantities of rice bags from the said goods train, thereby causing huge pecuniary loss to Railways. The authorities after holding preliminary enquiries and considering the material gathered in the three reports received from such preliminary enquiries, passed the order dismissing them from service, dispensing with the enquiry. While upholding such decision, it was observed that before the disciplinary authority etc. decided to dispense with the enquiry exercising the power under rule 47 of the Rules, three internal enquiries were conducted by the officials of RPF, and that a perusal of the enquiry reports would clearly show that though there were witnesses who had seen the incident of theft of rice bags from the goods train in question to which the appellants and others were parties, none of them was willing to either give a statement in writing or give evidence apprehending danger to his life. The facts narrated in the internal reports would clearly go to show that the appellants were in league with certain desperate miscreants, and, therefore, the locals who witnessed the theft were not willing to come forward to give any evidence, and for that reason, it was held that the disciplinary authority was right in coming to the conclusion that it would be impracticable for the Railways to hold an enquiry wherein witnesses could be examined to establish the misconduct of the appellants.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 46 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Ajay Pal Yadav vs U O I And Ors on 2 February, 2011

In Tarsem Singh Vs. State of Punjab & others (supra), the Apex Court considered the question of dispensing with the inquiry. In the aforesaid case, no case was found against Tarsem Singh, in the investigation done by the police with respect to the FIR lodged against him under section 377/34 IPC where a formal inquiry was dispensed with, as the appellant could have won over the aggrieved person as well as the witnesses from giving evidence, by threatening and other means. No material had been placed or disclosed either in the said order or before the court to show that subjective satisfaction arrived at by the statutory authority was based upon objective criteria. The purported reason for dispensing with the departmental proceedings is not supported by any document. The Apex Court laid down thus:
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - A Mishra - Full Document

Gajendara Singh 120Bn C vs U O I And Ors on 2 February, 2011

In Tarsem Singh Vs. State of Punjab & others (supra), the Apex Court considered the question of dispensing with the inquiry. In the aforesaid case, no case was found against Tarsem Singh, in the investigation done by the police with respect to the FIR lodged against him under section 377/34 IPC where a formal inquiry was dispensed with, as the appellant could have won over the aggrieved person as well as the witnesses from giving evidence, by threatening and other means. No material had been placed or disclosed either in the said order or before the court to show that subjective satisfaction arrived at by the statutory authority was based upon objective criteria. The purported reason for dispensing with the departmental proceedings is not supported by any document. The Apex Court laid down thus:
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - A Mishra - Full Document

Rakesh Kuamr Yadav vs The Union Of India & Ors on 2 February, 2011

In Tarsem Singh Vs. State of Punjab & others (supra), the Apex Court considered the question of dispensing with the inquiry. In the aforesaid case, no case was found against Tarsem Singh, in the investigation done by the police with respect to the FIR lodged against him under section 377/34 IPC where a formal inquiry was dispensed with, as the appellant could have won over the aggrieved person as well as the witnesses from giving evidence, by threatening and other means. No material had been placed or disclosed either in the said order or before the court to show that subjective satisfaction arrived at by the statutory authority was based upon objective criteria. The purported reason for dispensing with the departmental proceedings is not supported by any document. The Apex Court laid down thus:
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - A Mishra - Full Document

Vinod Kumar vs U O I And Ors on 2 February, 2011

In Tarsem Singh Vs. State of Punjab & others (supra), the Apex Court considered the question of dispensing with the inquiry. In the aforesaid case, no case was found against Tarsem Singh, in the investigation done by the police with respect to the FIR lodged against him under section 377/34 IPC where a formal inquiry was dispensed with, as the appellant could have won over the aggrieved person as well as the witnesses from giving evidence, by threatening and other means. No material had been placed or disclosed either in the said order or before the court to show that subjective satisfaction arrived at by the statutory authority was based upon objective criteria. The purported reason for dispensing with the departmental proceedings is not supported by any document. The Apex Court laid down thus:
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - A Mishra - Full Document

Mukesh Singh vs D G Of Police, Crpf, New Delhi on 2 February, 2011

In Tarsem Singh Vs. State of Punjab & others (supra), the Apex Court considered the question of dispensing with the inquiry. In the aforesaid case, no case was found against Tarsem Singh, in the investigation done by the police with respect to the FIR lodged against him under section 377/34 IPC where a formal inquiry was dispensed with, as the appellant could have won over the aggrieved person as well as the witnesses from giving evidence, by threatening and other means. No material had been placed or disclosed either in the said order or before the court to show that subjective satisfaction arrived at by the statutory authority was based upon objective criteria. The purported reason for dispensing with the departmental proceedings is not supported by any document. The Apex Court laid down thus:
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - A Mishra - Full Document

Shub Karan vs Director General Of Police And on 2 February, 2011

In Tarsem Singh Vs. State of Punjab & others (supra), the Apex Court considered the question of dispensing with the inquiry. In the aforesaid case, no case was found against Tarsem Singh, in the investigation done by the police with respect to the FIR lodged against him under section 377/34 IPC where a formal inquiry was dispensed with, as the appellant could have won over the aggrieved person as well as the witnesses from giving evidence, by threatening and other means. No material had been placed or disclosed either in the said order or before the court to show that subjective satisfaction arrived at by the statutory authority was based upon objective criteria. The purported reason for dispensing with the departmental proceedings is not supported by any document. The Apex Court laid down thus:
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - A Mishra - Full Document

Sobha Ram vs U O I Of Ors on 2 February, 2011

In Tarsem Singh Vs. State of Punjab & others (supra), the Apex Court considered the question of dispensing with the inquiry. In the aforesaid case, no case was found against Tarsem Singh, in the investigation done by the police with respect to the FIR lodged against him under section 377/34 IPC where a formal inquiry was dispensed with, as the appellant could have won over the aggrieved person as well as the witnesses from giving evidence, by threatening and other means. No material had been placed or disclosed either in the said order or before the court to show that subjective satisfaction arrived at by the statutory authority was based upon objective criteria. The purported reason for dispensing with the departmental proceedings is not supported by any document. The Apex Court laid down thus:
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - A Mishra - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next