Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (0.78 seconds)
K. Achuthan Nayar vs Union Of India Represented By The on 5 February, 2010 cites

Moni Shankar vs Union Of India And Another on 4 March, 2008

The above recital in the order sheet is nowhere near fulfillment of the requirement under Rule 14(18) of the C.C.S(CC & A) Rules. As stated in Moni Shankar (supra), "What were the circumstances appearing against the appellant had not been disclosed. There may be other such procedure lacuna which the applicant has raised in his appeal, but which have not been considered meticulously by the appellate authority. Thus, ground A(i) raised in the O.A is fully justified. 15 As regards ground A(ii), the applicant has referred to the deposition of one Shri Ravindran SW 1 who is stated to have deposed that the applicant did not ask him to correct the previous entries in the despatch register by writing the despatch letters one addressed to the DGRI and the other to Collector of Customs. He has not corrected any entries in the said register (Ex S-7) as he was not the in charge of the Despatch Register... whereas, the appellate authority's conclusion is "He was advised by Sh. K.A. Nayar to make entries in the vacant portion available in the dispatch register against Sl. No. 12891 and 12892 which he did. This point has been stated in the summary of the points congealed by the appellate authority, as item No. (i) that it was Ravindran who had made the entries, whereas the appellate authority has not specifically dealt with this deposition and contrasted before he came to the conclusion as contained in the appellate order. This is also for the Appellate Authority to consider and arrive at by way of re- appreciation of evidence.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 324 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Chairman And Managing Director,United ... vs P.C.Kakkar Chairman And Managing ... on 11 February, 2003

Also see Transport Commissioner vs A. Radhakrishnamoorthy (1995) 1 SCC 332, B.C. Chaturvedi vs Union of India (1995) 6 SCC 749, Apparel Export Promotion Council Vs A.K. Chopra (1999) 1 SCC 759 Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank v. P.C. Kakkar,(2003) 4 SCC 364, Lalit Popli v. Canara Bank,(2003) 3 SCC 583, Indian Rly.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 428 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Union Of India & Ors vs Dwarka Prasad Tiwari on 12 October, 2006

Sheo Shanker Lal Srivastava,(2006) 3 SCC 276, Union of India v. K.G. Soni,(2006) 6 SCC 794, at page 798, Union of India v. Dwarka Prasad Tiwari,(2006) 10 SCC 388, Govt. of India v. George Philip,(2006) 13 SCC 1, and Ramvir Singh v. Union of India,(2009) 3 SCC 97, ) 10 Thus, if the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the Inquiry Report (as modified by the Disciplinary Authority) itself is found to be vitiated (with reference to the procedure adopted and not by way of re- appreciation of evidence), the further edifice erected upon the same too would meet Waterloo. Instead, if the inquiry report cannot be found fault with, as to any legal lacuna, but there be some deficiency in the order of the Disciplinary Authority (here again, the decision making process alone would be tested by the judicial forum), then from that stage, including the appellate order, the proceedings have to be held as illegal and invalid. And, if there be no such lacuna in the procedure adopted by the disciplinary authority, but according to the applicant there has been lacuna in the appreciation of evidence which when rectified would entail in the exoneration of the applicant from the charges, and the disciplinary authority, despite the same being brought out in the representation against the inquiry report, failed to consider the objection, then it is for the Appellate Authority to consider the evidence to see whether the Disciplinary Authority had acted properly. It is for this reason that the appellate authority has been cast with the responsibility of ensuring "whether the findings of the Disciplinary Authority are warranted by the evidence on the record".
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 76 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Government Of India & Anr vs George Philip on 16 November, 2006

Sheo Shanker Lal Srivastava,(2006) 3 SCC 276, Union of India v. K.G. Soni,(2006) 6 SCC 794, at page 798, Union of India v. Dwarka Prasad Tiwari,(2006) 10 SCC 388, Govt. of India v. George Philip,(2006) 13 SCC 1, and Ramvir Singh v. Union of India,(2009) 3 SCC 97, ) 10 Thus, if the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the Inquiry Report (as modified by the Disciplinary Authority) itself is found to be vitiated (with reference to the procedure adopted and not by way of re- appreciation of evidence), the further edifice erected upon the same too would meet Waterloo. Instead, if the inquiry report cannot be found fault with, as to any legal lacuna, but there be some deficiency in the order of the Disciplinary Authority (here again, the decision making process alone would be tested by the judicial forum), then from that stage, including the appellate order, the proceedings have to be held as illegal and invalid. And, if there be no such lacuna in the procedure adopted by the disciplinary authority, but according to the applicant there has been lacuna in the appreciation of evidence which when rectified would entail in the exoneration of the applicant from the charges, and the disciplinary authority, despite the same being brought out in the representation against the inquiry report, failed to consider the objection, then it is for the Appellate Authority to consider the evidence to see whether the Disciplinary Authority had acted properly. It is for this reason that the appellate authority has been cast with the responsibility of ensuring "whether the findings of the Disciplinary Authority are warranted by the evidence on the record".
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 130 - G P Mathur - Full Document

State Of U.P vs Sheo Shanker Lal Srivastava & Ors on 24 February, 2006

The Tribunal was, thus, entitled to arrive at its own conclusion on the premise that the evidence adduced by the Department, even if it is taken on its face value to be correct in its entirety, meet the requirements of burden of proof, namely, preponderance of probability. If on such evidences, the test of the doctrine of proportionality has not been satisfied, the Tribunal was within its domain to interfere. We must place on record that the doctrine of unreasonableness is giving way to the doctrine of proportionality. (See State of U.P. v. Sheo Shanker Lal Srivastava2 and Coimbatore District Central Coop. Bank v. Employees Assn. (2007) 4 SCC 669 )
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 167 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Unde Rajah Raja Sri Raja Velugoti Sri ... vs The Secretary Of State For India In ... on 19 October, 1914

In this regard, it is pertinent to mention that apart from Rule 27, in the Government of India instructions No. 4 under the said Rule, vide order dated 1st October, 1980, it has been stated, "Thus, the rule requires that even if the appellant has not brought out any new points in the appeal, it is obligatory on the part of the Appellate Authority to discuss how there has been no procedural flaw or denial of opportunity of defence and that the findings of the Disciplinary Authority are based on evidences and are just." The instant case is one where the penalty initially imposed is not one of dismissal against which the appeal has been preferred. It is a case where a lesser penalty has been imposed, and the UPSC initially did not recommend any enhancement of penalty, but later at the second reference of the appellate authority intending to enhance the penalty, the UPSC has advised that if so, show cause notice is a must. Under such a circumstance, the appellate authority is expected to meticulously follow the procedure laid down in the CCS (CC&A) Rules. The following are the decisions of the Apex Court where the obligations of the appellate authority in dealing with an appeal have been spelt out elaborately:-
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 29 - Full Document

Nelson Motis vs Union Of India And Another on 2 September, 1992

(i) Nelson Motis v. Union of India, (1992) 4 SCC 711, The grounds mentioned in Rule 27 (2) permit the appellate authority to re-appraise the evidence on the record for examining whether the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority are warranted by such evidence. So far non-compliance of a procedural rule is concerned, the appellate authority is enjoined, by clause (a) of Rule 27 to consider whether such non-
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 332 - L M Sharma - Full Document
1   2 Next