Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 57 (0.43 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Roop Singh Negi vs Punjab National Bank & Ors on 19 December, 2008
The Apex Court also in Competition Commission of India Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Anr. JT 2010 (10) SC 26 in para 68 referring to the judgment in the case of Gurdial Singh Fijji (supra) said:
Radhey Kant Khare vs U.P. Co-Operative Sugar Factories ... on 19 November, 2002
3 SCC 459; State of U.P. Vs. Shatrughan Lal 1998 (6) SCC 651; Chandrama Tewari Vs. Union of India and others AIR 1998 SC 117; Anil Kumar Vs. Presiding Officer and others AIR 1985 SC 1121; Radhey Kant Khare Vs. U.P. Co-operative Sugar Factories 2003 (21) LCD 610; Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank and others (2009) 2 SCC 570; M.M. Siddiqui Vs. State of U.P. and others 2015 (33) LCD 836; Moti Ram Vs. State of U.P. and others 2013 (31) LCD 1319; Kaptan Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others 2014 (4) ALJ 440."
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Union Of India vs Ram Lakhan Sharma on 2 July, 2018
In the case of Union of India v. Ram Lakhan Sharma (2018) 7 SCC 670, the Apex Court observed as under:-
State Of U.P. & Ors vs Saroj Kumar Sinha on 2 February, 2010
In State of U.P. v. Saroj Kumar Sinha [State of U.P. v. Saroj Kumar Sinha, (2010) 2 SCC 772 : (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 675] , this Court had laid down that Enquiry Officer is a quasi-judicial authority, he has to act as an independent adjudicator and he is not a representative of the department/disciplinary authority/Government. In paras 28 and 30 the following has been held: (SCC p. 782)
"28. An Enquiry Officer acting in a quasi-judicial authority is in the position of an independent adjudicator. He is not supposed to be a representative of the department/disciplinary authority/Government. His function is to examine the evidence presented by the Department, even in the absence of the delinquent official to see as to whether the unrebutted evidence is sufficient to hold that the charges are proved. In the present case the aforesaid procedure has not been observed. Since no oral evidence has been examined the documents have not been proved, and could not have been taken into consideration to conclude that the charges have been proved against the respondents.
Subhash Chandra Sharma vs Managing Director, U.P. Co-Op. Spg. ... on 7 September, 1999
The decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Subhash Chandra Sharma's case (supra), was followed by a learned single Judge in Om Pal Singh v. District Development Officer. 2000 (3) AWC 1909 : 2000 (2) UPLBEC 1591.
Management Of The D.C.M. Chemical Works vs Their Workmen on 1 March, 1962
"After a charge-sheet is given to the employee, an oral enquiry is a must, whether the employee requests for it or not. Hence, a notice should be issued to him indicating him the date, time and place of the enquiry. On that date the oral and documentary evidence against the employee should first be led in his presence vide, A.C.C. Ltd. v. Their Workmen, (1963) U LLJ 396 (SC).
S.D. Sharma vs Trade Fair Authority Of India And Others on 19 November, 1984
Ordinarily, if the employee is examined first, it is illegal vide Anand Joshi v. M.S.F.C., 1991 LIC 1666 (Bom) ; S. D. Sharma v. Trade Fair Authority of India, (1985) II LLJ 193 and Central Railway v. Raghubir Saran, (1983) II LLJ 26.