Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.38 seconds)
Shri R.K. Sachdeva vs Union Of India & Others on 20 January, 2010 cites

State Of U.P. And Ors. vs Raj Pal Singh on 20 February, 2001

15. The reliance by the petitioner on State of U.P. & Others vs Raj Pal Singh (supra) is also not of much help as in that case the charges against the delinquents were same and identical in relation to one and the same incident and in these circumstances it was held that despite the High Court coming to the conclusion that the gravity of charges was W.P(C) No.304/2001 Page 9 of 11 the same, it was held that it would not be open for the disciplinary authority to impose different punishments on different delinquents. In contradistinction, it has not been established that the charges against the petitioner and Shri B.D. Kaushik, another delinquent, are the same arising out of the same incidence of misappropriation and fabrication and inflated bills of items purchased locally. Even the learned counsel for the petitioner has not even established that the evidence in both the cases recorded before the inquiry officer was same. Apparently, it could not be same as in the case of the petitioner neither the defense statement was filed nor the list of witnesses was filed nor the witnesses examined by the petitioner were cross-examined. It is not known whether in the case of another Junior Engineer, Sh.B.D. Kaushik, also the witnesses of the respondents were cross-examined or not. If the witnesses in the case of Sh.B.D. Kaushik were cross-examined and their testimonies were refuted, apparently the charges against B.D. Kaushik would not have been established to that extent they have been established against the petitioner. Consequently, on the basis of the ratio of the said judgment, petitioner cannot establish that there had been hostile discrimination against him.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 86 - B N Agrawal - Full Document

Nagaraj Shivarao Karjagi vs Syndicate Bank Head Office Manipal And ... on 30 April, 1991

In Nagaraj Shivaraon Karjagi (supra), the Supreme Court had held that the advice tendered by the Central Vigilance Commission is not binding on the Bank or the punishing authority and it was not obligatory upon the punishing authority to accept the advice of Central Vigilance Commission. In the case of the petitioner also though while disposing of the appeal by order dated 12th April, 1993, the advice rendered by the Central Vigilance Commissioner was referred to, however, in view of the order passed by the Tribunal in the earlier original application dated 1st April, 1997 to decide the appeal in accordance with law, the order dated 12th April, 1993 by the appellate authority was not acted upon and thereafter without adverting to the advice of the Central Vigilance Commissioner, an independent order was passed by the appellate authority. In the circumstances, the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner could not be vitiated on the ground that the respondent had obtained the advice of Central Vigilance Commission in the facts and circumstances.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 153 - K J Shetty - Full Document
1