Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.20 seconds)
Abhay Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 23 September, 2015 cites

Union Of India & Ors vs B.V.Gopinath on 5 September, 2013

In the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of B.V. Gopinath (Supra) relied upon by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, the Hon'ble Supreme Court have been pleased to hold that the Disciplinary Authority alone is required to exercise the power of initiation of Departmental Proceeding as also approval of the charge memo. This power could not be delegated as it would be against the established maxim Delegatus non potest delegare. After referring to Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 which were in contention in the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court found that though the decision to initiate Departmental Proceeding was taken by the competent authority i.e. Finance Minister, but the charge memo was not approved by the Finance Minister. In such circumstances, the Hon'ble Court was pleased to hold that the requirement of rules and the settled principles of law that the Disciplinary Authority alone has the power to take a decision both in matters of initiation of Departmental Proceeding and approval of charge memo, has not been followed. Paragraph-41, 46 and 50 of the report is quoted hereunder for better appreciation.
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 278 - M Y Eqbal - Full Document

K. Venkateshwarlu vs State Of A.P on 17 August, 2012

Counsel for the respondents has distinguished the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner as reported in K. Venkateshwarlu (Supra) stating that in that case also, even after acquittal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had been pleased to observe that the inquiry could be conducted against the delinquent employee; judgement rendered by the Constitution Bench in the case of R.P. Kapur Vs. Union of India and another 5. AIR 1964 SC 787 has also been referred therein. It is pointed that the order of the Trial Court dated 21.03.2014 does not show that any final form against the petitioner has been accepted. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that at this stage, neither is the proceeding without jurisdiction, nor it is actuated by malafides, calling for any interference when no final decision has been taken in the matter. The Disciplinary Authority should be left to take an objective decision on consideration of relevant materials produced during inquiry including the written statement and reply to second show-cause of the petitioner.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 72 - Full Document

R.P. Kapur vs Union Of India And Anr on 19 November, 1963

Counsel for the respondents has distinguished the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner as reported in K. Venkateshwarlu (Supra) stating that in that case also, even after acquittal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had been pleased to observe that the inquiry could be conducted against the delinquent employee; judgement rendered by the Constitution Bench in the case of R.P. Kapur Vs. Union of India and another 5. AIR 1964 SC 787 has also been referred therein. It is pointed that the order of the Trial Court dated 21.03.2014 does not show that any final form against the petitioner has been accepted. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that at this stage, neither is the proceeding without jurisdiction, nor it is actuated by malafides, calling for any interference when no final decision has been taken in the matter. The Disciplinary Authority should be left to take an objective decision on consideration of relevant materials produced during inquiry including the written statement and reply to second show-cause of the petitioner.
Supreme Court of India Cites 28 - Cited by 374 - K N Wanchoo - Full Document

Commissioner Of Police, New Delhi vs Narender Singh on 5 April, 2006

However, the second line of decisions show that an honourable acquittal in the criminal case itself may not be held to be determinative in respect of order of punishment meted out to the delinquent officer, inter alia, when: (i) the order of acquittal has not been passed on the same set of facts or same set of evidence; (ii) the effect of difference in the standard of proof in a criminal trial and disciplinary proceeding has not been considered (see Commr. of Police v. Narender Singh, or; where the delinquent officer was charged with something more than the subject- matter of the criminal case and/or covered by a decision of the civil court (see G.M. Tank, Jasbir Singh v. Punjab & Sind Bank and Noida Entrepreneurs Assn. v. Noida, SCC at p. 394, para
Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 152 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Principal, Gurunanak Girls Colleges ... vs Punjab & Sind Bank on 27 November, 2002

However, the second line of decisions show that an honourable acquittal in the criminal case itself may not be held to be determinative in respect of order of punishment meted out to the delinquent officer, inter alia, when: (i) the order of acquittal has not been passed on the same set of facts or same set of evidence; (ii) the effect of difference in the standard of proof in a criminal trial and disciplinary proceeding has not been considered (see Commr. of Police v. Narender Singh, or; where the delinquent officer was charged with something more than the subject- matter of the criminal case and/or covered by a decision of the civil court (see G.M. Tank, Jasbir Singh v. Punjab & Sind Bank and Noida Entrepreneurs Assn. v. Noida, SCC at p. 394, para
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 0 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

Noida Entrepreneurs Assn vs Noida & Ors on 15 January, 2007

However, the second line of decisions show that an honourable acquittal in the criminal case itself may not be held to be determinative in respect of order of punishment meted out to the delinquent officer, inter alia, when: (i) the order of acquittal has not been passed on the same set of facts or same set of evidence; (ii) the effect of difference in the standard of proof in a criminal trial and disciplinary proceeding has not been considered (see Commr. of Police v. Narender Singh, or; where the delinquent officer was charged with something more than the subject- matter of the criminal case and/or covered by a decision of the civil court (see G.M. Tank, Jasbir Singh v. Punjab & Sind Bank and Noida Entrepreneurs Assn. v. Noida, SCC at p. 394, para
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 381 - A Pasayat - Full Document
1   2 Next