Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.63 seconds)State Of U.P. & Ors vs Saroj Kumar Sinha on 2 February, 2010
23. Regarding the concept of inquiry proceedings culminating in punishment order, Hon'ble the Supreme Court has elucidated the law in the cases of Roop Singh Negi versus Punjab National bank and others MANU/SC/8456/2008:(2009) 1 SCC (L & S) 398 and State of Uttar Pradesh and others versus Saroj Kumar Sinha reported in (2010) 2 SCC 772.
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs Rajpal on 6 January, 2010
28. On the aspect of discrimination, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. and others versus Rajpal Singh (2010) 5 SCC 783 has held as follows:-
Roop Singh Negi vs Punjab National Bank & Ors on 19 December, 2008
The relevant portion of Roop Singh Negi (supra) is as follows:
The State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Rajit Singh on 22 March, 2022
34. So far as aforesaid judgment is concerned, it is quite evident that opposite parties have failed to make out the distinguishing feature as indicated in the said judgment of Rajit Singh (supra). Neither the inquiry report nor the impugned punishment order have adverted to any individual role of petitioner regarding allegations levelled against him and his role even with respect to same misconduct in the light of his duties of office have also not been distinguished. As has been indicated herein above, the conduct of inquiry itself indicates that the inquiry officer himself was unable to reach any subjective satisfaction regarding involvement of petitioner in the allegations levelled against him. With due respect, in the considered opinion of this Court, the aforesaid judgment would be inapplicable in the present facts and circumstances of the case.
Article 136 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Rajendra Yadav vs State Of M.P.& Ors on 13 February, 2013
29. The aforesaid proposition has thereafter been reiterated in the case of Rajendra Yadav versus State of M.P and others, (2013) 3 SCC 73. The relevant portion is as follows:-
1