Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.25 seconds)
Mr. S K Jasra vs Union Of India on 10 September, 2013 cites

Union Of India vs Sardar Bahadur on 29 October, 1971

The Supreme Court has held that in a disciplinary case the standard of proof required is that of preponderance of probability and not proof beyond reasonable doubt, [Union of India v. Sardar Bahadur, (1972) 4 SCC 618; (1972) 1 LLJ 1]. Therefore, it is perfectly in order for the IO to consider the charge as proved on preponderance of probability basis. Further, SW-5s deposition in Examination-in-chief is not considered fully reliable in view the factors discussed in comments to sub para (P) below.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 244 - Full Document

Rizan & Another vs State Of Chhatisgarh Thru Chief ... on 21 January, 2003

As regards the COs contention that SW-1 & 2 are interested witnesses, it is submitted that in the case of Rizan Vs. the State of Chhattisgarh, AIR 2003 SC 976, it was held that relationship is not a factor to affect the credibility of a witness. Therefore, the contention of the charged officer that SW-1 & SW-2 are interested witnesses, colluding with each other in furtherance of common aim to falsely implicate the CO is totally unfounded.
Supreme Court of India Cites 35 - Cited by 165 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Union Of India And Ors vs S.L. Abbas on 27 April, 1993

In Union of India v. S. L. Abbas (1993) 4 SCC 357 : (1993 AIR SCW 1753), when the order of transfer was interfered by the Tribunal, this Court held that the Tribunal was not an appellate authority which could substitute its own judgment to that bona fide order of transfer. The Tribunal could not in such circumstances, interfere with order of transfer of a Government servant.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 1804 - B P Reddy - Full Document

State Bank Of India And Ors vs Samarendra Kishore Endow And Anr on 18 January, 1994

I SCC 551 : (1992 AIR SCW 2830), it was held that the Administrative Tribunal was not an appellate authority and it could not substitute the role of authorities to clear the efficiency bar of a public servant, recently, in State Bank of India v. Samarendra Kishore Endow (1994) 1 JT (SC) 217 : (1994 AIR SCW 1465), a Bench of this Court to which two of us (B. P. Jeevan Reddy & B. L. Hansaria, JJ) were members, considered the order of the Tribunal, which quashed the charges as based on no evidence, went in detail into the question as to whether the Tribunal had power to appreciate the evidence while exercising power of judicial review and held that a Tribunal could not appreciate the evidence and substitute its own conclusion to that of the disciplinary authority. It would, therefore, be clear that the Tribunal cannot embark upon appreciation of evidence to substitute its own findings of fact to that of a disciplinary / appellate authority.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 200 - Full Document
1