Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 946 (1.18 seconds)
Documents citing Union Of India And Ors vs Mohd. Ramzan Khan on 20 November, 1990

R.S.R.T.C vs Bhanwar Lal Guarjar on 25 July, 2017

Both administrative reality and public interests do not, therefore, require that the orders of punishment passed prior to the decision in Mohd. Ramzan Khan's case (supra) without furnishing the report of the Inquiry Officer should be disturbed and the disciplinary proceedings which gave rise to the said orders should be reopened on that account. Hence we hold as above."
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kannedhara Srinivasa Rao, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 24 December, 2020

In Haryana Financial Corporation v. Kailash Chandra Ahuja13, the Division Bench of the Apex Court considered the consequences of non-supply of inquiry report and after considering various judgments from different countries with regard to conduct of enquiry and failure to furnish copy of the report, the Supreme Court after taking into consideration the judgments in Union of India v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan (referred supra) and three Judge Bench decision of the Apex Court in Kailash Chander Asthana v. State of U.P14, held that non-supply of the report would not `ipso facto' vitiate the order of punishment, in the absence of prejudice 11 (2014) 7 SCC 340 12 (2005) 2 SCC 237 13 (2008) 9 SCC 31 14 (1988) 3 SCC 600 MSM,J WP_16709_2020 10 to the delinquent.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - M S Murthy - Full Document

Tamil Nadu Electricity Board By Its ... vs N.K. Shanmughasundaram And Anr. on 20 March, 1991

20. The above decision of the Apex Court, in our view, has finally settled the proposition in most absolute and clear terms in respect of the rights of a civil servant under Article 311of the Constitution of India. But the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants seeks to draw inspiration from the observations made at paragraph 17 that their Lordships have not been shown any decision of a coordinateor a larger Bench of that Court taking a contrary view and, therefore, wants to re-agitate the very issue once again before us relying upon the decision of the Apex Court reported in Union of India v. Tulsiram P. Patel and Kailash Chander v. State of U.P. contending that the decision in Union of India v. Mohamed Ramzan Khan (1991) 1 L.L.J. 29 offends both against the principles of 'stare decisis' and 'per incurium'.
Madras High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Pradeep Kumar Chouksey vs Cotton Corpn. Of India Ltd. & Ors on 10 February, 2012

(Emphasis supplied) 22- Accordingly, it is clear that while examining the question of perversity of finding in a departmental inquiry, this Court does not exercise appellate jurisdiction nor is the sufficiency or otherwise of the 19 evidence a subject matter of judicial scrutiny. If a reasonable finding based on the evidence that has come on record is recorded, then further indulgence into the matter is not warranted. If the case in hand is analysed in the backdrop of the aforesaid principle and the evidence available on record, and the analysis of the same by the inquiry officer is taken note of, I am of the considered view that the findings of the inquiry officer cannot be termed as perverse of illegal to such an extent that it has to be rejected. The judgments relied upon in the case of Mohammed Ramzan Khan (supra), Roop Singh Negi (supra) and M.V. Bijlani (supra) relied upon by Shri Udayan Tiwari has to be scrutinized in the facts and circumstances of the case and the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the various cases referred to hereinabove, and if the same is done it cannot be said that the material available is not enough to hold the charges, particularly Charge No.4 as proved. Accordingly, I am not inclined to accept the contention of Shri Udayan Tiwari to the effect that the finding of the inquiry officer is perverse and, therefore, is to be out rightly rejected. On the contrary, the evidence of the inquiry officer are based on some evidence which is available on record and the sufficiency of the evidence cannot be a ground for interfering into the matter, because the inquiry officer does give cogent reasons for dis- believing the statement of the defence witnesses, particularly Hari Singh, and also for the act of the petitioner in showing inflated weighments to defraud the Corporation. Under such circumstances, it is a case where the findings are to be held to be reasonable and proper and no interference on that count is called for.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Gyanesh Shukla vs Chancellor University Of Lucknow on 18 January, 2023

In support of above arguments, reliance was placed on the judgment passed in the case of Union of India vs. S.K. Kapoor; reported in (2011) 4 SCC 589, Union of India and Others vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan reported in (1991) 1 SCC 588, M.D. ECIL, Hyderabad vs. B.Karunakar; reported in (1993) 4 SCC 7277 and Nanhey Lal Gupta vs. U.P. Upbhogta Sahkari Sangh Ltd. & Another; reported in (2007) 2 UPLBEC 1510.
Allahabad High Court Cites 59 - Cited by 0 - S Lavania - Full Document

Sita Ram Dubdey vs The State Of U.P. Thorugh The Secy. ... on 23 April, 2018

First submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has not been supplied demanded documents then rules of principles of natural justice have been violated as has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan (supra). In the said case, the Apex Court has held that, in case, the disciplinary authority while issuing second show cause notice if has not provided copy of the inquiry report then the order passed relying upon the inquiry report vitiates rules of principles of natural justice. Further records that non-supply of adverse material to the affected person, the authority taking decision against him on that basis constitutes violation of rules of principles of natural justice. The relevant paragraphs 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 dealing with the aforesaid two issues in the aforesaid judgment are quoted below :-
Allahabad High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - I Ali - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next