Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 35 (0.74 seconds)
Documents citing Chandigarh Administration, ... vs Ajay Manchanda Etc on 26 March, 1996

The State Of West Bengal & Ors vs Debabrata Singha on 13 November, 2019

In exercise of the power conferred by Rule 37(b) thereof, a member of the CISF was dismissed from service without holding an inquiry on the ground that it was not practicable to do so. While upholding the order of the writ court under challenge in the appeal, the coordinate Bench noticed the decisions of the Supreme Court dealing with similar provisions starting from Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel : AIR 1985 SC 1416, followed by Satyavir Singh v. Union of India : (1985) 4 SCC 252, A. K. Sen v. Union of India : (1985) 4 SCC 641, Chief Security Officer v. Singasan Rabi Das : AIR 1991 SC 1043; Chandigarh Administration, Union Territory, Chandigarh v. Ajay Manchanda, (1996) 3 SCC 753, Tarsem Singh v. State of Punjab : (2006) 13 SCC 581, and Risal Singh v. State of Haryana : (2014) 13 SCC 244. The common thread running through all such decisions is that the object of dispensing with an inquiry in a special case is based on public policy, conceived in public interest and such provision is to be applied for public good. The power to dispense with an inquiry must be exercised with due care, caution and circumspection and the decision cannot rest solely on the mere ipse dixit of the disciplinary authority. It is not open to a disciplinary authority to dispense with an inquiry lightly or arbitrarily or out of ulterior motive or merely to avoid it. The subjective satisfaction arrived at by the disciplinary authority must be based on objective criteria. A decision without recording reason cannot be sustained and even where reasons are assigned, the same are justiciable.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rajumiya Hanif Saiyed vs State Of Gujarat on 26 September, 2022

In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chandigarh Administration, Union Territory, Chandigarh and others v. Ajay Manchanda and others (1996) 3 SCC 753. He would further submit that ordinarily, the order passed by the authority exercising power under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution would be limited, but that Page 8 of 25 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 29 20:59:13 IST 2022 C/LPA/275/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2022 does not mean the scope of judicial review is excluded altogether and the Court can exercise its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution which ought to have been exercised by learned Single Judge. He, therefore, would submit that the appeal be allowed.
Gujarat High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - A J Desai - Full Document

Ram Chandra Singh vs The Director, Bihar Hindi Granth ... on 14 November, 2002

In the case of Chandigarh Administration v. Ajay Manchanda and Ors. , the Supreme Court observed that 'Situation', in context, most be construed as situation obtaining at the relevant place and at the relevant time. In other words, circumstances should show that at the relevant place and at the relevant time it was not reasonably practicable to hold any enquiry. In the instant case there does not appear to be any indication in the counter affidavit that the respondents wanted to hold any departmental enquiry at all. The question of dispensing with the enquiry can arise only when the practicable to hold. All that is suggested is that a criminal case is pending against the petitioner, charge wherein was framed only on 12.3.2001. At or about that time witnesses were threatened and terrorized. The witnesses are not witness of departmental enquiry witnesses of the criminal case. In the facts and circumstances, it appears to me that the so called satisfaction of the authority that it was not practicable to hold disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner was a camouflage for dismissing the petitioner from service.
Patna High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 6 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next