Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 130 (0.60 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Punjab & Ors vs Dr. Harbhajan Singh Greasy on 12 April, 1996

Delhi Development Authority vs S.C.Gautam on 12 March, 2012

In Harbhajan Singh Greasy (supra), the report of the inquiry officer leading to removal of the respondent from service was passed on an admission alleged to have been made by him. The High Court set aside the order of dismissal on the ground that the alleged admission was not supported by any written statement of the respondent. The High Court while setting aside the order directed reinstatement of the respondent in service. Setting aside the order of the High Court, Supreme Court, inter alia, held as under:-
Delhi High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 4 - V K Jain - Full Document

Gurbachan Singh Bachi vs State Of Punjab And Ors. on 11 October, 2004

In State of Punjab v. Dr. Harbhajan Singh Greasy (supra), the report of the Inquiry Officer was based on the admission of the respondent employee therein. However, the Inquiry Officer did not take the said admission in writing. Subsequently, the respondent therein denied having made any admission. Under the circumstances, it was observed by the Supreme Court that the High Court may be justified in setting aside the order of dismissal. However, when the inquiry was found to be faulty, it could not be proper to direct reinstatement with consequential benefits and the matter requires to be remitted to the Disciplinary Authority to follow the procedure from the stage at which the fault was pointed out and to take action according to law. Besides, pending inquiry, the delinquent must be deemed to be under suspension and the consequential benefits would depend upon the result of the inquiry and order passed thereon. It was held that the High Court had committed illegality in omitting to give the said direction. However, since the respondent therein had retired from service it was observed that no useful purpose would be served in directing to conduct inquiry afresh.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 8 - S S Saron - Full Document

Shah Babu Education Society And Anr. vs Presiding Officer, School Tribunal ... on 9 August, 2006

10. The next argument is to remand the matter back to employer. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment in State of Punjab v. Dr. Harbhajan Singh Greasy (supra). The perusal of that judgment reveals that the Hon'ble Apex Court has found that in matters where departmental enquiry is found to be vitiated, relief of reinstatement should not be granted straightway and proper course is to remit the matter back for fresh enquiry from the stage the fault or error is committed by the management and to treat the delinquent employee to be under deemed suspension during such enquiry. A perusal of said judgment leaves no manner of doubt that right of employer to continue with departmental enquiry after the employee has superannuated was not forming subject-matter of scrutiny there and therefore the issue is not considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
Bombay High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 7 - B P Dharmadhikari - Full Document

Delhi Development Authority vs K.P. Garg on 5 November, 2009

In State of Punjab Vs Dr. Harbhajan Singh Greasy (supra) Supreme Court had held that if enquiry was found to be faulty, it would not be proper to direct reinstatement with consequential benefits as the appropriate course would be to remit the matter to the disciplinary authority to follow the procedure from the stage at which the fault was pointed out and to take action according to law. The consequential benefits would depend upon the result of the enquiry and the order passed thereon.
Delhi High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 3 - A Kumar - Full Document

Monisikha Barua vs Hindustan Fertilizer Corpn. Ltd. And ... on 9 May, 1997

In State of Punjab and Ors. v. Dr. H.S. Greasy (supra) wherein the doctor already retired from service, and the Supreme Court pointed out that no useful purpose will be served in directing to conduct enquiry afresh holding earlier enquiry to be faulty. That was a case where departmental proceeding was initiated against a doctor on the ground of absence of duty in the emergency or attending on the flood victims between July 18, 1995 and July 21, 1995. He was further charged for other dereliction of duty. A departmental proceeding was initiated. The Enquiry officer submitted report holding that the doctor admitted that he was having private practice at Moga at that time. The report was submitted on the basis of the so-called admission of the doctor. But a written statement was filed wherein it was denied and further the so-called admissions were not taken by the Enquiry Officer in writing. The Supreme Court pointed out that as against the denial of the employee the Court before it had only the statement of the Enquiry Officer and that was not sup-ported by any statement in writing from the employee and on the basis of it Supreme Court found the enquiry to be faulty.
Gauhati High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

S V Sharma vs Director Of Education & Ors. on 28 August, 2017

20. Mr. Sikri has also tendered in court the decision in Dr. Harbhajan LPA 869/2013 Page 16 of 17 Singh Greasy (supra). In fact, this decision supports the course of action that we are adopting. The Supreme Court while holding that the High Court committed illegality in directing reinstatement and consequential benefits of the delinquent employee, went on to observe that since the respondent delinquent had retired from service, "now no useful purpose will be served in directing to conduct enquiry afresh. However, the respondent is not entitled to the back wages as he avoided responsibility as a doctor to treat the flood victims and that was cause for the suspension".
Delhi High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - V Sanghi - Full Document

The Dadupur Multipurpose Cooperative ... vs Presiding Officer, Industrial ... on 3 May, 2023

Considering the nature of the charge and absence of any inquiry, this Court finds that the impugned award is based upon proper appreciation of evidence on record and does not suffer from perversity. Lastly, the decision relied upon by learned counsel in "State of Punjab Vs. Dr.Harbhajan Singh Greasy" is not applicable in the present case, as it relates to a defective inquiry, whereas in the present case, no inquiry was conducted.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - M Bajaj - Full Document

Ashok Vidyalaya Shikshan Sanstha ... vs Bhalchandra Manikrao Pawar And Others on 28 July, 2022

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival contentions. It is signifcant to note here that the enquiry has been found to be vitiated on three counts namely; that the person competent to issue the statement of allegations i.e. the President of the Management has not issued the said statement of allegation, secondly, the constitution of the Inquiry Committee was not proper as the President was not part of the Inquiry Committee and did not act as the Convener and thirdly that the termination order has been issued by a person incompetent to issue it. The question as indicated herein should the Management be permitted to hold a de novo enquiry against respondent No. 1. For consideration of the said question, the observations of the Full Bench in para 65, in my view, are relevant. The Full Bench has taken into consideration the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of State of Punjab and others vs. Dr. Harbhajan Singh Greasy and others (supra) and the Judgments cited before it and thereafter it has concluded in the manner it has done in paragraph 65 of the said judgment. The question that begs an answer is, is the present case an exceptional case to warrant a de novo enquiry into the charges levelled against the respondent No. 1. Looking to the background of conspectus of facts prior to the issuance of the statement of allegations issued to the respondent No. 1, in my view, the course of action allowing the petitioners to hold de novo enquiry is not warranted in the instant case.
Bombay High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - M G Sewlikar - Full Document

Uco Bank vs Shri Ashok Kumar Mongia on 11 February, 2000

6. The judgment quashing the enquiry on the ground mentioned hereinabove is not challenged. However, it is contended by Mr. Rajiv Nayyar, learned senior counsel for the review petitioner that while setting aside the enquiry, this court should have given permission to the review petitioner to hold fresh enquiry instead of granting reinstatement with consequential benefits or passing the direction of payment of 50% of back wages. Reliance is placed on the following judgments of the Apex Court :_ (i) State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Harbhajan Singh Greasy of Orissa and Others Vs. Dinabandhu Beheta and Others .
Delhi High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - A K Sikri - Full Document

State Of Punjab And Ors vs Charan Dass on 13 January, 2016

I have gone through the decision of the Apex Court in State of Punjab versus Dr. Harbhajan Singh Greasy's case (supra). There is no quarrel with the proposition of law that if the punishment order is found to be illegal on account of defect in the enquiry, the Court could not direct reinstatement with all consequential benefits and the proper course is to direct the authority to proceed with the enquiry afresh, in accordance with law from the stage the defect has been pointed out. In the present case, the enquiry proceedings stand vitiated as the result of the enquiry cannot be described to be fair on account of the fact that the Enquiry Officer had himself acted as a prosecutor and adjudicator. Hence, the judgment relied upon by the learned GURPREET SINGH 2016.01.20 13:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh RSA No. 2441 of 2003 (O&M) -9- State counsel fails to advance the case of the appellants in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Sabina - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next