Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.29 seconds)State Of U.P. vs Ram Asrey on 7 February, 1990
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the
decisions reported in 1990(Supp) SCC 12 (State of U.P. v. Ram Asrey); AIR
1996 SC 426 (Union of India v. Iqbal Singh Cheema); 2000 (II) CTC 434 (Meena,
w/o.Balwant Hemake v. State of Maharashtra); and 2006 (1) Supreme 1
(T.Subramaniam v. The State of Tamil Nadu). All the above decisions relate
to criminal cases, where the proof required is beyond any reasonable doubt and
the motive also should be proved. Therefore, the said judgments will not help
the petitioner in any manner.
T. Subramanian vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 4 January, 2006
12. The learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on
a Division Bench decision of this Court reported in (2006)1 MLJ 48
(R.M.Palaniappan . v. The Transport Commissioner, Chennai) wherein this
Court set aside the punishment on the ground of not supplying materials or
required particulars and denied the opportunity to defend the case of the
petitioner by the Enquiry Officer. But in the present case, petitioner fully
participated in the enquiry and was given full opportunity to defend his case,
who had also produced witness on his behalf. Therefore the ratio laid down in
the above cited Division Bench judgment cannot be applied to the case on hand.
Janatha Bazar (South Kanara Central ... vs The Secretary, Sahakari Noukarara ... on 21 September, 2000
(b) A Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in
(2005 ) 1 M.L.J. 621 (Jambunathan v. The Management of Dheeran Chinnamalai
Transport Corporation Ltd.) while dealing with the case of misappropriation,
placing reliance on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in
AIR 2000 SC 3129 (Janatha Bazar v. Secretary, Sahakari Noukarara Singh), held
that once the act of misappropriation is proved, may be for a small or large
amount, there is no question of showing uncalled for sympathy and reinstalling
the employee in service.
Municipal Committee, Bahadurgarh vs Krishnan Behari And Ors on 19 February, 1996
The Division Bench also placed reliance on another
decision of the Supreme Court reported in J.T. (1996) 3 SC 96 (Municipal
Committee, Bahadurgarh v. Krishnan Behari and Others), wherein it was held
that in cases of misappropriation, there cannot be any other punishment other
than dismissal. It is further held that any sympathy shown in such cases is
totally uncalled for and opposed to public interest and that the amount
misappropriated may be small or large, but it is the act of misappropriation
that is relevant.
The Management Of Hindustan ... vs The Presiding Officer, Principal ... on 11 March, 2005
(c) In another Division Bench decision of this Court reported in
(20 05) 3 M.L.J. 375 (The Management of Hindustan Teleprinters Employees
Co-operative Thrift and Credit Society Limited v. The Presiding Officer,
Principal Labour Court) in paragraph 14 it is held that in case of
misappropriation, whether, of small amount or large amount, the only
punishment which can be given is dismissal.
Union Of India & Ors vs Shri Iqbal Singh Cheema on 16 October, 1995
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the
decisions reported in 1990(Supp) SCC 12 (State of U.P. v. Ram Asrey); AIR
1996 SC 426 (Union of India v. Iqbal Singh Cheema); 2000 (II) CTC 434 (Meena,
w/o.Balwant Hemake v. State of Maharashtra); and 2006 (1) Supreme 1
(T.Subramaniam v. The State of Tamil Nadu). All the above decisions relate
to criminal cases, where the proof required is beyond any reasonable doubt and
the motive also should be proved. Therefore, the said judgments will not help
the petitioner in any manner.
1