Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.19 seconds)
Bhan Singh Bhadoria vs State Of M.P. And Ors. on 11 April, 2002 cites

State Of Orissa & Ors vs Shri Ramanath Patnaik on 2 April, 1997

3. The learned Counsel of the petitioner has submitted that whatever enquiry was made regarding his date of birth was done behind his back and no enquiry report was given to him to controvert the findings arrived at in such an enquiry. Therefore, it does not amount to affording him of any proper opportunity of hearing. It is further submitted that such an enquiry regarding date of birth should not have been done at the fag end of the service life. Heavy reliance is placed on the decisions of the Apex Court in case of Union of India v. Hamam Singh, reported in AIR 1993 SC 1367, State of Orissa and Ors. v. Ramanath Patnaik, reported in AIR 1997 SC 2452 and G.M. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., West Bengal v. Shib Kumar Dushad and Ors., reported in AIR 2001 SC 72.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 66 - Full Document

G.M., Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., West ... vs Shib Kumar Dushad & Ors on 2 November, 2000

3. The learned Counsel of the petitioner has submitted that whatever enquiry was made regarding his date of birth was done behind his back and no enquiry report was given to him to controvert the findings arrived at in such an enquiry. Therefore, it does not amount to affording him of any proper opportunity of hearing. It is further submitted that such an enquiry regarding date of birth should not have been done at the fag end of the service life. Heavy reliance is placed on the decisions of the Apex Court in case of Union of India v. Hamam Singh, reported in AIR 1993 SC 1367, State of Orissa and Ors. v. Ramanath Patnaik, reported in AIR 1997 SC 2452 and G.M. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., West Bengal v. Shib Kumar Dushad and Ors., reported in AIR 2001 SC 72.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 117 - D P Mohapatra - Full Document

Union Of India vs T. R. Varma on 18 September, 1957

4. In so far as affording the opportunity of hearing is concerned, it is urged that petitioner/Government servant was not supplied with the documents relied on against him. It has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India v. T.R. Varma, reported in AIR 1957 SC 882, wherein it has been observed that rules of natural justice require that a party should have the opportunity of adducing all relevant evidence on which he relies, that the evidence of opponent should be taken in his presence, and that he should be given the opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses examined by that party, and that no materials should be relied on against him without his being given an opportunity of explaining them.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 786 - Full Document

Union Of India And Ors vs Mohd. Ramzan Khan on 20 November, 1990

In case of Union of India and Ors. v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, reported in (1991) 1 SCC 588, it has been pointed out that where conclusions are kept away from the delinquent officer and the Inquiry Officer submits his conclusions with or without recommendation as to punishment, the delinquent is precluded from knowing the contents thereof although such material is used against him by the disciplinary authority. The report is an adverse material if the Inquiry Officer records a finding of guilt and proposes a punishment so far as the delinquent is concerned, deprived of knowledge of the material against him though the same is made available to the punishing authority in the matter of reaching its conclusion, rules of natural justice would be affected.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 668 - R B Misra - Full Document
1