Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 339 (1.14 seconds)
Documents citing Union Of India & Ors vs Gyan Chand Chattar on 28 May, 2009

Atiq Ahmad vs Union Of India on 3 August, 2022

10. This position of law has been reiterated in the recent case of Union of India &Ors. v. Gyan Chand Chattar (supra) and in Para 35 of the judgment as reported in the SCC, this Court has observed that the law can be summarized that an enquiry is to be conducted against any person giving strict adherence to the statutory provisions and principles of natural justice and the charges should be specific, definite and giving details of the incident which formed the basis of charges and no enquiry can be sustained on vague charges...."
Central Administrative Tribunal - Lucknow Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

4 Anjani Kumari D/O S/O Late Ramesh ... vs Central Coalfields Ltd. Through Its ... on 12 June, 2024

(1977) 1 SLR 750] was reiterated : (Gyan Chand Chattar case [Union of India v. Gyan Chand Chattar, (2009) 12 SCC 78 : (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 129] , SCC p. 88, paras 35-36) "35. ... an enquiry is to be conducted against any person giving strict adherence to the statutory provisions and principles of natural justice. The charges should be specific, definite and giving details of the incident which formed the basis of charges.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - S N Prasad - Full Document

Union Of India Represented Through ... vs Manoj Kumar on 24 April, 2024

(1977) 1 SLR 750] was reiterated : (Gyan Chand Chattar case [Union of India v. Gyan Chand Chattar, (2009) 12 SCC 78 : (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 129] , SCC p. 88, paras 35-36) "35. ... an enquiry is to be conducted against any person giving strict adherence to the statutory provisions and principles of natural justice. The charges should be specific, definite and giving details of the incident which formed the basis of charges. No enquiry can be sustained on vague charges. Enquiry has to be conducted fairly, objectively and not subjectively. Finding should not be 12 LPA No.201/2023 perverse or unreasonable, nor the same should be based on conjectures and surmises. There is a distinction in proof and suspicion. Every act or omission on the part of the delinquent cannot be a misconduct. The authority must record reasons for arriving at the finding of fact in the context of the statute defining the misconduct.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - S N Prasad - Full Document

Snigdhendu Ghosh vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 19 July, 2018

In the case of Union of India and Others vs. Gyan Chand Chattar (supra) relying upon the case of Sawai Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (supra) Supreme Court held that in a domestic enquiry the charge must be clear, definite and specific as would be difficult for any delinquent to meet the vague charges. There must be fair play in action particularly in respect of an order involving adverse or penal consequences. The Court held that an enquiry is to be conducted against any person giving strict adherence to the statutory provisions and principles of natural justice. No enquiry can be sustained on vague charges. The findings should not be based on conjectures and surmises. Every act or omission on the part of the delinquent cannot be a misconduct.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 29 - Cited by 1 - I P Mukerji - Full Document

State Of Karnataka vs Smt. H S Kanthi on 1 October, 2024

1977 SCC (L&S) 298:(1977)1 SLR 750] was reiterated : (Gyan Chand Chattar case [Union of India v. Gyan Chand Chattar, (2009) 12 SCC 78:(2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 129], SCC p. 88, paras 35-36) "35. ... an enquiry is to be conducted against any person giving strict adherence to the statutory provisions and principles of natural justice. The charges should be specific, definite and giving details of the incident which formed the basis of charges. No enquiry can be sustained on vague charges.
Karnataka High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - S G Pandit - Full Document

Sri Satyabrata Bhattacharjee vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 29 February, 2012

21. We have examined the report of the enquiry officer as in our opinion the Tribunal has unfortunately abdicated its duty by failing to consider the same. From the report of the enquiry officer it is discernibly perverse. The witness Ashok Biswas in his deposition had not in any manner indicated that the petitioner had demanded any amount from him despite which the enquiry officer has found that the charge of extortion had been proved. In fact this witness had 15 stated that it was one Shyamal Chakraborty, who had asked for some amount which was allegedly to be given to the Officer-In-Charge. However, Shyamal Chakraborty who was also examined denied having asked for any amount or having stated that the amount was to be paid to the petitioner. The allegation of Ashok Biswas that he was falsely implicated in a criminal case because he refused to pay the money demanded by the petitioner is not borne out from the evidence on record. The investigating officer of that case was examined and he has admitted in his cross examination that Ashok Biswas was implicated on the basis of the statement made by some other person. It is obvious from the record that this charge of extortion has not been proved to the hilt against the petitioner which is necessary in the case of a quasi-criminal charge like extortion as observed in the case of Union of India and Ors. vs. Gyan Chand Chattar. In fact the evidence on record does not even indicate a preponderance of probabilities of the petitioner having committed the misconduct alleged. It appears that the enquiry officer was acting, not as an unbiased person and an independent adjudicator, but as a representative of the departmental / disciplinary authority / government which has resulted in injustice to the petitioner.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - N Mhatre - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next