Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.23 seconds)Union Of India & Ors vs S.K.Kapoor on 16 March, 2011
The judgement in the case of Union of India Vs. T.V Patel (2007) 4 SCC 785 is based on the Constitution Bench judgment of State of U.P. Vs. Manbodhan Lal Srivastava(Supra) and judgement of Ram Gopal Chaturvedi Vs. State of M.P. 1969(2) SCC 240.The judgements in the case of Union of India Vs. S.K. Kapoor(Supra) of the Apex Court and in the case of Brijendra Kumar Agarwal of this court (supra) do not consider the binding authority of Constitutional Bench in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Manbodhan Lal Srivastava(Supra) and are based only on the principal of natural justice. Principles of natural justice has been unduly applied in the context of of Article 320(3) (c) of the Constitution, when Article 311 of the Constitution is already in accordance with Article 14 of the Constitution and clearly protects the civil servant from any arbitrary order of punishment being passed against him, without opportunity of hearing.
State Of U. P vs Manbodhan Lal Srivastava on 20 September, 1957
The judgement in the case of Union of India Vs. T.V Patel (2007) 4 SCC 785 is based on the Constitution Bench judgment of State of U.P. Vs. Manbodhan Lal Srivastava(Supra) and judgement of Ram Gopal Chaturvedi Vs. State of M.P. 1969(2) SCC 240.The judgements in the case of Union of India Vs. S.K. Kapoor(Supra) of the Apex Court and in the case of Brijendra Kumar Agarwal of this court (supra) do not consider the binding authority of Constitutional Bench in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Manbodhan Lal Srivastava(Supra) and are based only on the principal of natural justice. Principles of natural justice has been unduly applied in the context of of Article 320(3) (c) of the Constitution, when Article 311 of the Constitution is already in accordance with Article 14 of the Constitution and clearly protects the civil servant from any arbitrary order of punishment being passed against him, without opportunity of hearing.
Article 320 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Union Of India & Anr vs T.V. Patel on 19 April, 2007
In the aforesaid decision, it has been observed in para 25 that 'the provisions of Article 320 (3) (c) of the Constitution of India are not mandatory'. We are of the opinion that although Article 320(3) (c)) is not mandatory, if the authorities do consult the Union Public Service Commission and rely on the report of the commission for taking disciplinary action, then the principles of natural justice require that a copy of the report must be supplied in advance to the employee concerned so that he may have an opportunity of rebuttal. Thus, in our view, the aforesaid decision in T.V.Patel's case is clearly distinguishable. There may be a case where the report of the Union Public Service Commission is not relied upon by the disciplinary authority and in that case it is certainly not necessary to supply a copy of the same to the concerned employee. However, if it is relied upon, then a copy of the same must be supplied in advance to the concerned employee, otherwise, there will be violation of the principles of natural justice.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Bank Of Patiala & Ors vs S.K.Sharma on 27 March, 1996
We do not intend to enter into the above controversy in view of the judgement of Apex Court in the case of State Bank of Patiala Vs. S.K. Sharma, AIR, 1996, SC 169, wherein principles of natural justice were examined in the context of disciplinary proceeding and was held that the order of punishment consequent to departmental inquiry should not be set aside automatically only on the allegation of violation of rights/regulations/statutory provisions governing such inquiry. The court should examine whether the violation is of substantive or procedural nature. Substantial compliance with the Rule and in the absence of any prejudice caused, by some violation of procedural provisions, there will be no cause of action before the court of law. In case procedural provision is not mandatory in character, the complaint or violation has to be examined from the stand point of substantial compliance. Further in case of violation of procedural provision, which is mandatory in character, it has to be ascertained that provision is in the interest of the person proceeded or in the public interest.
Managing Director Ecil Hyderabad Etc. ... vs B. Karunakar Etc. Etc on 1 October, 1993
Ultimate test is prejudice caused to the person proceeded against as held by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Managing Director Ecil Hyderabad Vs. B. Karunakarn, (1993) 4 SCC, 727.
State Of U.P. & Others vs Ashok Kumar Singh & Anr on 10 November, 1995
We have also restrained ourself from any interference in the impugned order of punishment because the petitioner is a member of disciplined force and was found negligent in discharge of his duties by the Disciplinary Authority. The Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. and others Vs. Ashok Kumar Singh and another, (1996) 1 SCC, 302.