Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.22 seconds)State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Chandra Mohan Nigam & Others on 19 September, 1977
In this regard reliance has been placed on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Chandra Mohan Nigam AIR 1977 S.C. 2411. In the said case the Court was dealing with a case of compulsory retirement and the question was as to whether the instructions issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs would have status of statutory rules or not. In this background, the Apex Court held that "It is sufficient for our purpose that these instructions do not violate any provision of the Act or of the rules. Rule 16(3), being a rigorous rule, vis-a-vis a Government servant not himself willing to retire under Rule 16(2), has to be invoked in a fair and reasonable manner. Since Rule 16(3) itself does not contain any guidelines, directions or criteria, the instructions issued by the Government furnish an essential and salutary procedure for the purpose of securing uniformity in application of the rule. These instructions really fill up the yawning gaps in the provisions, and are embedded in the conditions of service.
Sant Ram Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan & Anr on 7 August, 1967
These are binding on the Government and cannot be violated to the prejudice of the Government servant (see also Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, (1968) 1 SCR 111: (AIR 1967 SC 1910) and Union of India v. K.P. Joseph, (1973) 2 SCR 752 : (AIR 1973 SC 303)."
Orissa Mining Corporation Appellants ... vs Ananda Chandra Prusty on 5 November, 1996
16. The question of shifting of the burden of proof to show that the petitioner had not actually temporarily misappropriated any amount has to be seen in the light of the aforesaid facts. The ratio of the decision of the Apex Court in Orissa Mining Corporation v. Ananda Chandra Prusty (1997) 1 ESC 148 would not be applicable to the present case. As I have already discussed above, in his reply, the petitioner has merely explained that the amount, which was handed over to him on 20th August, 1987 had been returned to the complainant. His reply cannot be construed to mean that he had admitted the changes levelled against him. This fact is also not disputed that the complainant had subsequently withdrawn his complaint, on the basis of which the disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against the petitioner. The burden of proof could thus not shift on the petitioner, as he had never admitted to the charges of temporary embezzlement. It remained to be proved as to whether the amount which was said to have been handed over to the petitioner on 20th August, 1987 had been returned to the complainant or not. It is also not disputed that on 20th August 1987, the amount which remained payable by the complainant to the Bank in his loan accounts was not Rs. 5498/- but only Rs. 998/-. The explanation of the petitioner that the said balance amount of Rs. 998/- had been deposited by him on 30th September, 1987 when it was actually handed over by the complainant to him and not any amount which was handed over by the complainant earlier, had to be proved before the enquiry officer and then only the petitioner could be held guilty of temporary embezzlement. In the absence of the examination of the complainant as a witness, as was required in such cases by the NABARD circular dated 20th June, 1987, the charge could thus not be said to have been proved.
THE REGIONAL RURAL BANKS ACT, 1976
R.K. Tyagi, Adv. vs Labour Court And Anr. on 21 August, 2002
21. The Apex Court in the case of A.K. Mohan v. Labour Court and Ors. S.C. 1986(52) F.L.R. 487 has held that "an enquiry report in a quasi-judicial must show the reasons for the conclusion. It cannot be an ipse dixit of the enquiry officer. It has to be a speaking order in the sense that the conclusion is supported by reasons". In the present case, as I have already observed above, the enquiry report does not give any cogent reason to show that the charges against the petitioner stood proved.
1