Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.27 seconds)Bank Of India And Anr vs Degala Suryanarayana on 12 July, 1999
5. Considering all relevant aspects of the case, Enquiry
Officer had given his reasoning to prove the charges
against applicant and other officials, it cannot be said
that he had not weighed the evidence to the best of his
8 OA 1342/2014
competence, he has discussed each and every aspect of
the enquiry. More so, he has to see preponderance of
probability and the strict rule of evidence cannot be
applied in the Departmental Proceeding. As held by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Bank of India vs.
Degala Suryanarayana JT 1999 (4) SC 489 states that
"strict rules of evidence are not applicable to that
allegation against delinquent officers."
K. L. Shinde vs State Of Mysore on 26 March, 1976
6. The coordinating bench of this Tribunal has also
discussed the Tribunal/court's jurisdiction in
departmental cases as held in the matter of K.L. Shinde
vs. State of Mysore (1976) 3 SCC 76), the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in para 9 observed as under:-
B.C. Chaturvedi vs Union Of India And Ors on 1 November, 1995
Again in the case of B.C.Chaturvedi Vs. UOI &
Others (AIR 1996 SC 484) at para 12 and 13, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court observed as under:-
Head Constable Dharam Pal vs The Commissioner Of Police on 23 April, 2012
The applicant has challenged the Appellate and
Disciplinary Authority Order, who has been dealt with
the Joint Departmental proceedings. The OAs filed by the
other delinquent officials, who had also been dealt with
in the same departmental proceeding which were listed
before another bench of this Tribunal have been already
been decided in OA No. 3475/2014 titled Head Constable
Sushil Sharma vs. Commissioner of Police and in OA No.
3437/2014 titled Constable Sohan Bir Singh vs.
Commissioner of Police. A common charge sheet, reads
as under :-
Union Of India & Ors vs P.Gunasekaran on 3 November, 2014
Recently in the case of Union of India and Others
Vs. P.Gunasekaran (2015(2) SCC 610), the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has observed as under:-
Gnct Of Delhi And Ors vs Asi Rambir Singh And Anr on 18 December, 2012
7. The applicant has cited the judgement delivered on
18.12.2020 by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in W.P.(C)
7680/2010 in the matter of GNCT of Delhi and Ors. vs.
ASI Rambir Singh and Anr., which states that if
testimony of DW1 has gone unchallenged, there is no
alternative but to accept the same.
The Delhi Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 1994
Union Of India vs H. C. Goel on 30 August, 1963
In Union of India
v. H. C. Goel (1964) 4 SCR 718 : (AIR 1964 SC 364),
this Court held at page 728 (of SCR): (at p 369 of AIR),
that if the conclusion, upon consideration of the
evidence, reached by the disciplinary authority, is
perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of the
record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of
certiorari could be issued".
1