Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 171 (4.29 seconds)
Documents citing Union Of India & Ors vs Bishamber Das Dogra on 26 May, 2009

Smt.K.K.Remadevi vs Union Bank Of India Represented By The on 24 March, 2015

The learned counsel relied on another decision in Union of India & Ors v. Bishamber Das Dogra [2009(13) SCC 102] in W.P.(C) No.39854/2003 16 support of imposing penalty on the basis of past conduct. When prima facie case is not made out against the petitioner, the past conduct is not relevant, since the dismissal in this case was not for the past conduct, therefore, the above decision is also not applicable to the facts of this case.
Kerala High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Anshul Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 July, 2025

The High Court agreed with the contention of the respondent and held that a fresh enquiry cannot be initiated into a misconduct for which a delinquent had already suffered a penalty. The High Court found that any penalty imposed under Charge 3 would amount to double jeopardy. We disagree with the finding of the High Court as we are of the view that the respondent was not being tried again for previous misconduct. As the respondent did not improve in spite of being punished earlier and had become habitual in indiscipline and disorderliness, the disciplinary authority rightly found Charge 3 as proved. The desirability of continuance of the respondent was considered on the basis of his past conduct which does not amount to double jeopardy. In any event, past conduct of a delinquent employee can be taken into consideration while imposing penalty. We are supported in this view by a judgment of this Court in Union of India v. Bishamber Das Dogra [Union of India v. Bishamber Das Dogra, (2009) 13 SCC 102 : (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 212] , held as follows : (SCC p. 111, para 30) "30. ... But in case of misconduct of grave nature or indiscipline, even in the absence of statutory rules, the authority may take into consideration the indisputable past conduct/service record of the employee for adding the weight to the decision of imposing the punishment if the facts of the case so require."
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dhananjay Kumar Shukla vs Police on 2 September, 2013

In   the   case   of  "Union   of   India   &   Ors.   Vs.   Bishambar   Das   Dogra", reported in (2009) 13 SCC 102, in which a Security Guard  in C.I.S.F. remained absent from duty without justification for more  than five times and an order of removal from service was passed,  the   Hon'ble   Supreme   Court   while   examining   the   effect   of   non­ supply of enquiry report, has observed as under,
Jharkhand High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sn Singh S/O Sh. Kailash Singh vs The Union Of India on 25 November, 2011

In Union of India & Ors v Bishamber Das Dogra (supra), the Ld. Advocate had referred to the following observation, "... Appeal filed by the respondent employee was decided by the Statutory Appellate Authority giving cogent reasons. The facts of the case did not present special features warranting any interference by the Court in limited exercise of its powers of judicial review. In such a fact situation, we are of the view that the High Court should not have interfered with the punishment order passed by the disciplinary authority on such technicalities."
Delhi District Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Prabhat Kumar Singh vs Army College Of Medical Sciences ... on 3 January, 2017

In so far as the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bisambhar Das Dogra (supra) is concerned, the said judgment as relied upon by Mr. Rai was to the extent that the charged employee must be informed, that his past conduct would W.P.(C) 5408/2012 Page 13 of 17 be taken into consideration while imposing the punishment would not be applicable to the only issue urged by Mr. Rai during his submissions, i.e., proportionality of the punishment. In so far as the judgments relied upon by Mr. Chibber are concerned in Basi Lal Gera's case (supra), this Court has held when an allegation is made against the student and the fact finding committee complied with the principle of natural justice is entitled to device its own procedure, in such cases, interference with the order of the University is not called for.
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - V K Rao - Full Document

Dhanpati Barik vs State And Ors on 31 October, 2017

21. Later on, aforesaid principles were again reiterated in the case of Union of India and Ors. Vs. Bishamber Das Dogra (2009) 13 SCC 102 that in case where enquiry report has not been made available to the delinquent employee, it would not ipso facto vitiate the disciplinary proceedings as it would depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case and delinquent employee has to establish that real prejudice has been caused to him by non- furnishing the enquiry report to him. Following observations are pertinent :
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next