Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.65 seconds)
P L Gupta vs Cpwd on 18 October, 2024 cites

Ministry Of Finance & Anr vs S.B. Ramesh on 2 February, 1998

31. We have also gone through law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 3091 of 1995 in the case of Ministry of Finance and Another vs. S. B. Ramesh decided on 02.02.1998 and the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P. (C) No. 11396/2005 in the case of Union of India Vs. Mr. Lalit Kumar decided on 10.03.2011 and hold the view that the Inquiring Officer did not comply with the rule 14 (18) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 which cast obligation upon the Inquiring Authority to question the delinquent official on the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence for the purpose of enabling to explain any circumstances as there is no reference to the evidence brought on record or circumstances appearing against applicant the general examination. In this case, the Inquiry Officer did not articulate and made assessment of circumstances going against the charged officer (applicant) and to satisfy the requirement of provision in perfunctory manner by asking a question. Further, as indicated in Para 22 above and position made clear by the Chief Engineer to CVO vide letter dated 13.05.2014 (Annexure-A/5), the reasons of negligence and delay in filing suit for recovery cannot be attributed to the applicant.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 206 - K Venkataswami - Full Document

Union Of India vs Lalit Kumar on 18 February, 2019

31. We have also gone through law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 3091 of 1995 in the case of Ministry of Finance and Another vs. S. B. Ramesh decided on 02.02.1998 and the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P. (C) No. 11396/2005 in the case of Union of India Vs. Mr. Lalit Kumar decided on 10.03.2011 and hold the view that the Inquiring Officer did not comply with the rule 14 (18) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 which cast obligation upon the Inquiring Authority to question the delinquent official on the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence for the purpose of enabling to explain any circumstances as there is no reference to the evidence brought on record or circumstances appearing against applicant the general examination. In this case, the Inquiry Officer did not articulate and made assessment of circumstances going against the charged officer (applicant) and to satisfy the requirement of provision in perfunctory manner by asking a question. Further, as indicated in Para 22 above and position made clear by the Chief Engineer to CVO vide letter dated 13.05.2014 (Annexure-A/5), the reasons of negligence and delay in filing suit for recovery cannot be attributed to the applicant.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - R Gogoi - Full Document

B.C. Chaturvedi vs Union Of India And Ors on 1 November, 1995

"11. Appearing for the appellants - Union of India, Ms. Aakanksha Kaul, learned counsel has argued that the impugned judgment is unsustainable for the reason that the High Court has acted as an Appellate Authority by directing reinstatement of the respondent, which runs contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India and Others 3; that the High Court while exercising the powers vested in it under judicial review, ought not to have stepped into the shoes of the Appellate Authority and reappreciated the evidence to arrive at independent findings on the evidence adduced; that no grievance was raised by the respondent that the rules of natural justice had been violated or the inquiry had not been conducted in a proper manner or that the findings arrived at by the Disciplinary Authority were based on no evidence. Learned counsel asserted that in the instant case, the inquiry was conducted by a competent officer, rules of natural justice were duly complied with and the findings arrived at by the Inquiry Officer were based on sufficient evidence. Stating that having regard to the fact that the charges against the respondent had been proved in a properly conducted departmental inquiry after giving a reasonable opportunity to the respondent to defend 22 OA No. 2926/2017 Item No. 21/C-II himself, there was no good reason for the learned Single Judge to have converted the punishment of dismissal from service imposed by the Disciplinary Authority and upheld by the Appellate Authority, to compulsory retirement and for the Division Bench to have further interfered by reassessing the evidence and directing reinstatement of the respondent in service with full back wages and only thereafter, pass a fresh order of punishment.
Supreme Court of India Cites 28 - Cited by 2256 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

State Of Orissa vs Bidyabhujshan Mohapatra on 19 October, 1962

12. Citing the decision in State of Orissa and Others v. Bidyabhushan Mohapatra, it was contended that keeping in mind the gravity of the established misconduct, the Disciplinary Authority has the power to impose a punishment on the delinquent officer and such a punishment is not open for review by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was also sought to be urged on behalf of the appellants that the past conduct of the respondent can be taken into consideration while awarding penalty, subject to the condition that the same is made a part of a separate charge, as was done in the instant case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 229 - J C Shah - Full Document
1   2 Next