Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.22 seconds)
Rajesh Kumar vs State Of U.P.Thru Addl.Chief Secy. ... on 19 August, 2021 cites

State Of Assam & Anr vs J. N. Roy Biswas on 6 October, 1975

32. In the aforesaid judgment, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner was that no vigilance enquiry should be conducted on the subject on which an enquiry has already been held. However, the submission of the respondents before the Division Bench was that the employer has right to hold an enquiry and the order holding that to say enquiry by the Vigilance Establishment is justified. The Division Bench has categorically observed that in view of the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in re: State of Assam and another vs. J.N. Roy Biswas AIR 1975 SC 2277, the enquiry having come to its logical ends by either resulted into the punishment of the employee concerned or exoneration, the matter should come to an end unless there is some fresh or new material no enquiry should be held because ultimately that will affect the functioning of the government servant and efficiency in performing the government work.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 105 - V R Iyer - Full Document

Tata Cellular vs Union Of India on 26 July, 1994

26. Sri Shukla has lastly submitted that initiation of vigilant enquiry is well within the forecorners of law and the said enquiry being the fact finding enquiry, therefore, only after completion of the aforesaid fact finding enquiry it will be ascertained and decided that whether any formal / regular enquiry is necessary to be initiated against the petitioner or not. Referring the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court in re: Tata Cellular vs. Union of India reported in (1994) 6 SCC 651 has submitted that the scope of judicial review into administrative decision is not permitted. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the Court does not sit as a Court of appeal but merely reviewed the manner in which the administrative decision was made. The Court does not have expertise to correct the administrative decision. If the review of administrative decision is permitted, it will be substituting its own decision, without the necessary expertise which itself may be fallible.
Supreme Court of India Cites 33 - Cited by 3275 - S Mohan - Full Document

Dinesh Chandra Mishra vs State Of U.P. Thru Secy.Deptt.Of Home ... on 21 January, 2016

31. Therefore, in view of the above, the sole ground to assail the impugned order dated 02.06.2020 that the vigilance enquiry has been initiated on the same set of fact which has been inquired into vide a detailed departmental enquiry is not sustainable in the eyes of law, rather, the aforesaid ground is misconceived. The case laws so cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner would not be applicable in the present case inasmuch as the facts and circumstances of the present case are entirely different from the cases so cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Not only the above, the petitioner has enclosed the Annexure No.13 with the writ petition, which is the judgment and order dated 11.09.2008 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in re: Dr. Dinesh Chandra Misra vs. State of U.P. & others (supra) by submitting that in the identical facts and circumstances this Court had quashed the order dated 20.01.2004 whereby the vigilance enquiry was initiated against that petitioner to conduct the enquiry regarding disproportionate assets. The aforesaid judgment and order dated 11.09.2008 was challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court by filing Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s). 30044 of 2008 and the said appeal was rejected by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 27.04.2009, therefore, as per learned counsel for the petitioner, the judgment and order dated 11.09.2008 has attained its finality.
Allahabad High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 1 - R Roy - Full Document
1   2 Next