Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 62 (0.32 seconds)The Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Union Of India And Ors vs Mohd. Ramzan Khan on 20 November, 1990
We have pointed out that there was no contradiction between the view taken
in Mohd. Ramzan Khan's case (AIR 1991 SC 471) (supra) and the view taken by
this court in the earlier cases, and the reliance placed on K. C. Asthana's
case (AIR 1988 SC 1338) (supra) to contend that a contrary view was taken
there was not well merited.
I.C. Golak Nath And Ors. vs State Of Punjab And Anr. on 27 February, 1967
In Golak Nath v, State of Punjab (1967) 2 SCR 762 : (AIR 1967 SC 1643),
this Court while declaring that Shankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of
India, 1952 SCR 89: (AIR 1951 SC 458) and Sajjan Singh v. State of
Rajasthan (1965) 1 SCR 933 : (AIR 1965 SC 845) were wrongly decided, held
that the constitutional amendments offend the fundamental rights and the
Parliament has no power to amend fundamental rights exercising the power
under Art. 368, applied Golak Nath rule prospectively and upheld the pre-
existing law as valid, Mohd. Ramzan Khan tread on the same path.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Uttar Pradesh Government vs Sabir Hussain on 30 April, 1975
In State of U. P. v. Sabir Hussain, (1975) Suppl SCR 354 : (AIR 1975 SC
2045), a Bench of three Judges held that the supply of the report of the
enquiry officer is a part of reasonable opportunity under Art. 311(2) of
the Constitution.
Sri Sankari Prasad Singh Deo vs Union Of India And State Of Bihar(And ... on 5 October, 1951
In Golak Nath v, State of Punjab (1967) 2 SCR 762 : (AIR 1967 SC 1643),
this Court while declaring that Shankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of
India, 1952 SCR 89: (AIR 1951 SC 458) and Sajjan Singh v. State of
Rajasthan (1965) 1 SCR 933 : (AIR 1965 SC 845) were wrongly decided, held
that the constitutional amendments offend the fundamental rights and the
Parliament has no power to amend fundamental rights exercising the power
under Art. 368, applied Golak Nath rule prospectively and upheld the pre-
existing law as valid, Mohd. Ramzan Khan tread on the same path.
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Of Gujarat vs R. G. Teredesai & Anr on 10 April, 1969
In State of Gujarat v. R.
G. Teredesai, (1970) 1 SCR 251: (AIR 1969 SC 1294), a Bench of three Judges
held that the enquiry officer was under no obligation or duty to make any
recommendations in the matter of punishment to be imposed on the servant
against whom the departmental enquiry was held. Its function was merely to
conduct the enquiry in accordance with the law and to submit the record
along with his findings or conclusions on the delinquent. If the enquiry
officer has also made recommendation in the matter of punishment, that is
likely to affect the mind of the punishing authority with regard to the
penalty or punishment to be imposed on such officer, it must be disclosed
to the delinquent. Since such recommendation form part of the record and
constitutes appropriate material for consideration, it would be essential
that the material should not be withheld from him so that he could, while
showing cause against the proposed punishment, make a proper
representation. The entire object of supplying a copy of the report of the
enquiry officer is to enable the delinquent to satisfy the punishing
authority that he is innocent of the charges framed against him and that
even if the charges are held to have been proved the punishment proposed to
be inflicted is unduly severe.