Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.25 seconds)
Ram Deo Tripathi vs State Of U.P. & Others on 11 February, 2014 cites

Dr.(Smt.) Abha Gupta vs The State Of U.P. And Others on 29 October, 2013

The further contention of Sri Singh that no oral enquiry, since was conducted, as such, the enquiry was vitiated, also has substance. No witnesses etc. have been examined. This Court in a recent decision rendered in Writ Petition No. 64216 of 2011f Dr. (Smt.) Abha Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and others has dealt with the law on the subject and after referring to various decisions of this Court as well as of Apex court, concluded that if adequate opportunity of making oral inquiry is denied then the order of punishment itself would be rendered illegal. The procedure, thus followed by the enquiry officer, in holding the enquiry against the petitioner cannot withstand the test of judicial scrutiny. We are inclined to accept the argument of the petitioner that the enquiry proceedings, in the instant case, had been conducted in complete violation of principles of natural justice.
Allahabad High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 1 - R Kumar - Full Document

Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar vs U.O.I. And Others on 6 August, 1999

The next argument of the petitioner that the charge-sheet merely proceeded on the allegation that the order passed by the petitioner was illegal, therefore, the integrity of the petitioner became doubtful, is unjustified, also has substance. Merely passing of a wrong and illegal order by quasi judicial authority would not constitute a misconduct. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar Vs. Union of India and others, reported in 1999 7 SCC, 409, while dealing with the instance of failure by quasi judicial authority to properly adjudicate the matter, by wrong application and interpretation of law, has been pleased to hold that such error itself does not constitute a misconduct. A wrong decision is subject to judicial supervision in appeal and that in order to issue a charge sheet against a quasi judicial authority, something more in the nature of extraneous consideration or malafide having actuated the order, needs to be alleged and proved. Relevant portion of para- 40 and para-43 of the said judgment is reproduced below:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 41 - Cited by 261 - D P Wadhwa - Full Document

Mona Panwar vs High Court Of Judicat.At Allahabd.& Ors on 2 February, 2011

Reliance has also been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of A.K. Upadhyay Vs.The Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and others, reported in J.T. 2013 (3) S.C. 32, as well as the judgment reported in the case of Mona Panwar Vs. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and others, reported in (2011) 3 SCC, 496. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has recognised that our legal system acknowledges fallibility of the judges and that is why it provides for appeals and revisions. The condemnation of the officers passing illegal order, without there being any allegation of malafide or extraneous consideration being the motivation for passing of such orders, have not been approved.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 97 - J M Panchal - Full Document
1