Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 277 (0.95 seconds)
Documents citing Ministry Of Finance & Anr vs S.B. Ramesh on 2 February, 1998

Sh. Chaman Lal vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 13 January, 2010

the Apex Court in Hardwari Lal v. State of U.P. & others, 2000 (1) ATJ (SC) 244 and in Ministry of Finance & another v. S.B. Ramesh, (1998) 3 SCC 227 ruled that any document introduced during the course of inquiry cannot be proved legally unless the maker of the document is summoned and afforded an opportunity for being cross examined by the delinquent. Not doing so has certainly prejudice the applicant in his defence, which vitiates the inquiry.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 211 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

P L Gupta vs Cpwd on 18 October, 2024

31. We have also gone through law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 3091 of 1995 in the case of Ministry of Finance and Another vs. S. B. Ramesh decided on 02.02.1998 and the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P. (C) No. 11396/2005 in the case of Union of India Vs. Mr. Lalit Kumar decided on 10.03.2011 and hold the view that the Inquiring Officer did not comply with the rule 14 (18) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 which cast obligation upon the Inquiring Authority to question the delinquent official on the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence for the purpose of enabling to explain any circumstances as there is no reference to the evidence brought on record or circumstances appearing against applicant the general examination. In this case, the Inquiry Officer did not articulate and made assessment of circumstances going against the charged officer (applicant) and to satisfy the requirement of provision in perfunctory manner by asking a question. Further, as indicated in Para 22 above and position made clear by the Chief Engineer to CVO vide letter dated 13.05.2014 (Annexure-A/5), the reasons of negligence and delay in filing suit for recovery cannot be attributed to the applicant.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Uniion Of India Through Secretary, ... vs Tarlok Singh on 10 March, 2011

In Ministry of Finance v. S.B.Ramesh, (1998) 3 SCC 227 the Supreme Court had held the Rule 14 (18) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 to be mandatory. The Apex Court had upheld the decision of the Tribunal holding that the order of the Disciplinary Authority was based on no evidence and that the findings were perverse, on the reasoning that even if the Enquiry Officer had set the applicant ex parte and recorded the evidence, he should have adjourned the hearing to another date to enable the applicant to participate in the enquiry thereafter. Or even if the Enquiry Authority did not choose to give the applicant an opportunity to cross-examine the witness examined in support of the charge, he should have given an opportunity to the applicant to appear and then proceeded to question him under Sub-rule (18) of Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules. The omission to do this was construed to be a serious error committed by the Enquiry Authority. This also cannot be disputed that if the charged officer has examined himself as a witness then it will not be obligatory to examine the charged officer under Rule 14(18) of CCS(CCA) Rules. However, in the absence of any defense statement by the charged official, it was mandatory on the part of the W.P.(C) 1760/2008 Page 21 of 22 enquiry officer to examine him under Rule 14(18), and the non- compliance of which will vitiate the enquiry proceedings.
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 1 - A Kumar - Full Document

Government Of Gujarat vs Shivabhai S. Makwana on 15 August, 1998

In the case of Ministry of Finance & Anr. v. S. B. Ramesh, (supra), the Central Administrative Tribunal in the case of a Government servant who has been found having extra-marital relations has not taken it to be serious or misconducts, unbecoming of Government servant on the ground that there is no law in our country which makes sexual relationship of two adult individuals of different sex, unlawful unless the relationship is adulterious or promiscuous. If a man and a woman are residing under the same roof and if there is no law prohibiting such a residence, what transpires between them is not a concern of their employer. Such a life, if accepted by the society at large, without any displeasure or grudge, then it cannot be said that there is any moral turpitude involved in the living. The Tribunal has gone to say further that in this case, there is no case that on account of the delinquent living with the lady, his reputation among the general public has been lowered or that, the public has been looking down on his conduct as an immoral one. The aforesaid observations and approach of the Central Administrative Tribunal has been disapproved by the Honourable Supreme Court in the said case.
Gujarat High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 1 - S K Keshote - Full Document

The Chief Secretary & Ors vs Jitender Kumar Bhatia on 23 August, 2016

26. Coming to the present case, the enquiry officer has clearly stated that "[t]he CO did not offer himself as a witness. He was therefore, examined in general by me." The aforementioned transcripts of cassettes were not put to the respondents by the enquiry officer to enable them to properly meet the allegations against them. According to us, this has denied them of an opportunity to effectively meet this part of the evidence against them. Thus, we are unable to accept the contention of the counsel for the petitioners in this regard. Counsel for the petitioner had also urged that in the absence of any prejudice being shown, the Tribunal should not have vitiated the proceedings. This argument must also fail in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in S.B. Ramesh (Supra) holding that compliance with Rule 14 (18) is mandatory.
Delhi High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - G S Sistani - Full Document

Sanjay Kumar Singh vs Post Up Circle on 19 February, 2025

19. As far as compliance of the provision of Rule 14 (18) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 is concerned, since applicant has not examined himself as witness, thus, it was incumbent upon the Inquiry Officer to interrogate the delinquent employee under Rule 14 (18) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 to explain the incriminating evidence collected during enquiry. Since aforesaid procedure has not been followed, no opportunity has been given as required under the aforesaid Rule to the applicant, thus, enquiry report on this ground alone has been vitiated. Opinion formed by the Tribunal find support with the law laid down in the case law of Union of India and others Vs. Surendra Kumar - Delhi High Court Writ (Civil) No. 11031 of 2022 decided on 2.6.2023, S.B Ramesh (supra) as well as D.S. Manchanda (supra). It is pertinent to mention here that opportunity MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 17 to adduce evidence has been given to the applicant as would be clear from the enquiry report itself.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Awadhesh Kumar Gupta vs The Board Of Directors,Tulsi Gramin ... on 21 May, 2012

28. Similar is the case of Ministry of Finance and another Vs. S.B. Ramesh (supra). Therein it was a case where the statement of a witness was relied without his cross-examination. The Court found that the evidence relied was an ex parte one since the delinquent employee had no occasion to cross check the veracity of statement of witnesses by cross examination. The Court virtually held that the documents said to be proved by witnesses without any opportunity of cross examination to the delinquent employee cannot be said to have been proved in accordance with law and therefore even those documents could not have been relied. Again here is a case entirely different as discussed above and, therefore, the aforesaid judgment also lends no support to petitioner.
Allahabad High Court Cites 45 - Cited by 1 - S Agarwal - Full Document

Karan Singh vs Govt. Of Nctd on 4 February, 2025

31. We have also gone through law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 3091 of 1995 in the case of Ministry of Finance and Another vs. S. B. Ramesh decided on 02.02.1998 and the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P. (C) No. 11396/2005 in the case of Union of India Vs. Mr. Lalit Kumar decided on 10.03.2011 and hold the view that the Inquiring Officer did not comply with the rule 14 (18) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 which cast obligation upon the Inquiring Authority to question the delinquent official on the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence for the purpose of enabling to explain any circumstances as there is no reference to the evidence brought on record or circumstances appearing against applicant the general examination. In this case, the Inquiry Officer did not articulate and made assessment of circumstances going against the charged officer (applicant) and to satisfy the requirement of provision in perfunctory manner by asking a question. Further, as indicated in Para 22 above and position made clear by the Chief Engineer to CVO vide letter dated 13.05.2014 (Annexure-A/5), the reasons of negligence and delay in filing suit for recovery cannot be attributed to the applicant.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shri Ravindra Kumar Gupta vs Union Of India on 12 October, 2013

17. Again, rightly argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that mandatory provisions of Rule 14 (18) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 have not been complied with even though the proceedings dated 6.12.2008 before the inquiry officer has been termed by the Inquiry Officer as mandatory examination of the applicant. A reading of the aforesaid proceedings would reveal that nowhere the Inquiry Officer has generally examined the applicant as required under the aforesaid rule. As held by the Apex Court in the case of S.B. Ramesh (supra) that by violation of the aforesaid rule, which is mandatory in character is in violation of principles of natural justice. The relevant part of the said order reads as under:-
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next