Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 33 (0.31 seconds)
G. Karunanidhi vs The Indian Bank on 19 December, 2007 cites

The Disciplinary ... vs Nikunja Bihari Patnaik on 15 April, 1996

In the Disciplinary Authority-cum-Regional Manager and Others v. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik, JT 1996 (4) SC 457, the respondent allowed overdrafts or passed cheques involving substantial amounts beyond his authority. Even though such acts did not result in loss to the bank and in some cases even yielded some profits to the bank, it was held by the Supreme Court that as they were done beyond the authority of the employee it was an act in breach of discipline, and hence he was liable to be punished.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 296 - B P Reddy - Full Document

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

e. (1995) 6 SCC 749 in the matter of B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India: (paras 13, 14 and 18) "13. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. Where appeal is presented, the appellate authority has coextensive power to reappreciate the evidence or the nature of punishment. In a disciplinary inquiry, the strict proof of legal evidence and findings on that evidence are not relevant. Adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed before the Court/Tribunal.
Supreme Court of India Cites 28 - Cited by 2256 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Regional Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C, Etawah ... vs Hoti Lal & Anr on 11 February, 2003

In the enquiry, as already referred to above, the petitioner made a consistent plea with regard to the notings and queries of his superiors in DEX 6, 7 and 13 and sought scrutiny of the same and the same plea was also put before the Disciplinary Authority. No doubt, non-supply of documents on which the Enquiry Officer does not rely during the course of enquiry does not create any prejudice to the delinquent. It is only those documents, which are relied upon by the Enquiry Officer to arrive at his conclusion, which would cause prejudice being violative of principles of natural justice. Therefore, the document sought by the delinquent officer which are relevant for the purpose of enquiry and which were part of the charges and those documents which are not supplied to the delinquent officer but were those on which the prosecution relied for the proper conclusion, have to be supplied. If such documents are not supplied, that will have a great prejudice and be a detriment to the interest of the officer concerned when the demand is used in recording finding of the charges and on which the Enquiry Officer arrived at a conclusion, then, it is the bounden duty and obligation on the part of the authority to supply the necessary material and relevant documents to the delinquent officer as otherwise it would amount to violation of principles of natural justice.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 270 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Ganesh Santa Ram Sirur vs State Bank Of India & Anr on 17 November, 2004

c. (2005) 1 SCC 13 in the matter of Ganesh Santa Ram Sirur v. State Bank of India: (paras 34 and 35) 34. The bank manager/officer and employees of any bank, nationalised/or non-nationalised, are expected to act and discharge their functions in accordance with the rules and regulations of the bank. Acting beyond ones authority is by itself a breach of discipline and trust and a misconduct. In the instant case Charge 5 framed against the appellant is very serious and grave in nature. We have already extracted the relevant Rule which prohibits the bank manager to sanction a loan to his wife or his relative or to any partner. While sanctioning the loan the appellant did not appear to have kept this aspect in mind and acted illegally and sanctioned the loan. He realised the mistake later and tried to salvage the same by not encashing the draft issued in the maiden name of his wife though the draft was issued but not encashed. The decision to sanction a loan is not an honest decision. Rule 34(3)(1) is a rule of integrity and, therefore, as rightly pointed out by Mr Salve, the respondent Bank cannot afford to have the appellant as bank manager. The punishment of removal awarded by the appellate authority is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 72 - A R Lakshmanan - Full Document

Union Of India vs Sardar Bahadur on 29 October, 1971

18. It is useful to note the following observations of this Court in Union of India v. Sardar Bahadur : (SCC p. 623, para 15) Where there are some relevant materials which the authority has accepted and which materials may reasonably support the conclusion that the officer is guilty, it is not the function of the High Court, exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226, to review the materials and to arrive at an independent finding on the materials. If the enquiry has been properly held, the question of adequacy or reliability of the evidence cannot be canvassed before the High Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 244 - Full Document

Union Of India Etc vs Parma Nand Etc on 14 March, 1989

19. After a detailed review of the law on the subject, this Court, while dealing with the jurisdiction of the High Court or Tribunal to interfere with the disciplinary matters and punishment in Union of India v. Parma Nanda opined: (SCC p. 189, para 27)  27 . We must unequivocally state that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to interfere with the disciplinary matters or punishment cannot be equated with an appellate jurisdiction. The Tribunal cannot interfere with the findings of the enquiry officer or competent authority where they are not arbitrary or utterly perverse. It is appropriate to remember that the power to impose penalty on a delinquent officer is conferred on the competent authority either by an Act of legislature or rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. If there has been an enquiry consistent with the rules and in accordance with principles of na tural justice, what punishment would meet the ends of justice is a matter exclusively within the jurisdiction of the competent authority. If the penalty can lawfully be imposed and is imposed on the proved misconduct, the Tribunal has no power to substitute its own discretion for that of the authority.
Supreme Court of India Cites 27 - Cited by 164 - K J Shetty - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next