Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 265 (0.74 seconds)
Documents citing Rattan Lal Sharma vs Managing Committee, Dr. Hari Ram ... on 14 May, 1993

Arwachin Bharti Bhawan vs The Directorate Of Education on 3 March, 2000

27 In "Shri Rattan Lal Sharma Vs. Managing Committee, Dr.Hari Ram (Co education) Higher Secondary School & Others", , the appellant before the Supreme Court was Principal of Dr.Hari Ram (Co-Education) Higher Secondary School, Datarpur in Tehsil of Dasuya in the District of Hoshiarpur in the State of Punjab. A disciplinary action was taken against him and an inquiry committee was constituted. One of the members of the Committee was one Maru Ram. It was admitted that Maru Ram appeared as a witness for proving charge No.12 on behalf of the School against the appellant. The appellant raised objection for the inclusion of the said Maru Ram in the Inquiry Committee. Ultimately, an order was passed dismissing the appellant from service. That was challenged before the High Court. The learned Single Judge, who heard the matter, allowed the writ petition. That was reversed by the Division Bench. The Principal took up the matter to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court noticed the crucial fact:
Delhi High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - K Ramamoorthy - Full Document

Indo National Limited vs Labour Court And Anr. on 18 April, 2003

14. From the material on record, there is no evidence that the said five workmen are representing any other workmen as is evident from the material. In fact, it is the case of the Petitioner that even before the Labour Court, the so-called Action Committee also did not present and lead any evidence. On the other hand, the Counsel, who sought to represent the dismissed workmen, who are not made parties to the present proceedings, stated that even before the Labour Court the Action Committee did not represent, but, only the dismissed workmen alone represented the matter. But it is not known how the dismissed workmen could represent their case when they are not made parties and in fact the issue was raised by an Action Committee of five workmen, who did not further pursue the said dispute. Another representation made by the learned Counsel was that the disputes with reference to those five members of the Action Committee were settled and therefore, they have given up the cause of the two workmen. In any case, from the material on record there are 308 workmen working with the Writ Petitioner Company. But if the cause of the two dismissed employees was espoused by only five workers, it could not be considered as an industrial dispute, in the light of the above decisions. Though this issue was raised for the first time before this Court, in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in R.L. Sharma v. Managing Committee, Dr. Hari Ram (Co.Edn.)
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dr. Subramanian Swamy vs J. Jayalalitha And Ors. on 15 November, 1993

So on a careful scrutiny of cases and the copies of records produced before me and taking into consideration the principles laid down in the cases mentioned hereinabove and on the facts and circumstances of the cases on hand, I am fully satisfied that the point raised by Mr. K.K. Venugopal, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, with regard to the question of bias, likelihood of bias and the reasonable apprehension of bias, has to be accepted. At the same time, I have to point out that on the basis of the counter-affidavit filed by the first respondent herein, it cannot be said that he will hear the case impartially. Though it is accepted by both the parties that the first respondent is a man of integrity and is also a constitutional functionary, holding a responsible post, if the principles laid down in the cases mentioned hereinabove, are to be applied to the facts of the cases on hand, I have no other option except to accept the case of the petitioner that she will not get a fair hearing or a decision from the first respondent herein. The peculiar facts of the case can be seen. Dr. Subramanian Swamy, the second respondent herein, against the petitioner herein, has given a memorandum to the Governor of Tamil Nadu According to him, there is some delay in forwarding the said memorandum to the first respondent herein. As such, the second respondent herein approached the Supreme Court byway of a writ petition in W.P. (Civil) No. 942 of 1992. Dr. Roxna S. Swamy, the wife of the second respondent herein is the advocate for the first respondent herein, in a civil suit filed by the first respondent against a news agency praying for a huge amount of Rs. one crore, as defamation. The first respondent/Election Commission is to hear the memorandum submitted by the second respondent herein. Dr. Roxna S. Swamy, a practising advocate, assisted her husband in the conduct of the writ petition against the Governor of Tamil Nadu. Now the said memorandum submitted by the second respondent herein has been forwarded to the first respondent herein. The petitioner alleges that if the first respondent is allowed to continue the hearing, it will be against the principles of natural justice. On the principles laid down by various courts, which have been extracted above, I do not think that it can be said that the contention of the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner is untenable. So on the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, I have to hold that it will be meaningless to allow the first respondent to enquire into the memorandum submitted by the second respondent which had been forwarded by the Governor of Tamil Nadu, for a decision which will be a nullity and coram non judice, as it will affect the principles of natural justice....
Madras High Court Cites 41 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

M/S.Vijay Cements vs The Additional Director General on 14 March, 2013

i) In Rattan Lal Sharma v. Managing Committee, Dr Hari Ram (Co-Education) Higher Secondary School, (Cited supra), it has been held that the departmental proceeding was vitiated for flagrant violation of principle of natural justice and charge No.12 was sought to be proved by Shri Maru Ram himself who appeared as a witness before enquiry committee although he was one of the members of enquiry committee. The Apex Court further held that the enquiry committee that consists of Mr.Shri Maru Ram could not decide the issue without bias. The Apex Court further held that No person shall be a judge in his own cause. I am not able to understand how the same could be applied here.
Madras High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - D Hariparanthaman - Full Document

Ejaz Alam Siddique vs Presiding Officer on 2 April, 2014

In reply to the contention that Mr. R.K. Mohanty, Chief Superintendent (Mech.) Blast Furnace had no competence or authority to act as disciplinary authority of the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the employer-opposite party no.2 submitted, with reference to paragraph-16 of the counter affidavit, that the plea should be ignored since it was never raised at any stage, not even before the Industrial Tribunal and further that the Chief Superintendent is the appointing authority of the petitioner. But no document showing that the Superintendent is the appointing authority has been filed. On the contrary, the appointment order of the petitioner reveals that the Dy. Manager, Personnel is the appointing authority. The contention of the learned counsel for the opposite party that the plea was not raised before 14 the Industrial Tribunal and as such should not be allowed to be raised in this writ application, is unacceptable in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Rattan Lal Sharma v. Managing Committee, Dr. Hari Ram (Co-education) Higher Secondary School and others : AIR 1993 SC 2155 wherein it has been held as follows :
Orissa High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 1 - B K Nayak - Full Document

Santosh Kumar Parida vs M/O Labour &Amp Employment on 18 November, 2020

11. The applicant's counsel in written note has enclosed a copy of the judgment in the case of Rattan Lal Sharma vs. Managing Committee, Dr. Hari Ram (Co- education) Higher Secondary School, AIR 1993 SC 2155. In the said case, the inquiry committee for the disciplinary proceeding, one person was a member of the committee who was also one of the prosecution witness. Hence, the4 punishment was set aside with liberty to the Managing Committee to proceed in the matter afresh. In this OA, it is not the case of the applicant that any of the witness cited by prosecution has anything to do with the decision in the proceeding against him. The applicant has not specifically shown the reason for which the DA can be considered to be acting as a judge of his own cause. Hence, the cited judgment will not be applicable to the case.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Cuttack Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Prof.Kona Prakash Reddy vs The Union Of India And 6 Others on 19 October, 2022

In the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rattan Lal Sharma Vs. Managing Committee, Hari Ram (Co-Education) Higher Secondary School9, the issue was whether there was a real likelihood of bias and it was held that it depends not 8 (1978) 1 SCC 405 9 1993 LawSuit(SC) 487 W.P.No.14931 of 2022 12 upon what actually was done but upon what might appear to have been done.
Telangana High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - P M Devi - Full Document

Prof Ajay Tiwari vs Universtiy Of Delhi & Ors on 26 July, 2023

The case of Rattan Lal Sharma v. Managing Committee, Dr. Hari Ram (Co- education) Higher Secondary School & Ors.(supra) was a case where complaints were lodged by girl students about a nude march of male students of the college in their hostel and although the Supreme Court found no flaw in the recording of statement of complainant girls in the absence of the delinquent official, the proceedings were held to be vitiated in law since disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the Principal of a College and it was found that one of the members of the inquiry committee had also deposed as a witness in support of one of the charges against the appellant.
Delhi High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 0 - D K Sharma - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next