Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.29 seconds)Mathura Prasad vs Union Of India & Ors on 1 November, 2006
XVII. The reliance of the applicant in Mathur Prasad v. Union of
India may not be relevant because the dispute in the said case is that the
disciplinary authority ordered return of inquiry report to the inquiry officer
without giving reasons for disagreement, which is not the issue in the case
on hand. True, procedures are to be followed, but in cases of corruption,
Hon‟ble Supreme Court in its own judgment cited supra has held that minor
procedure lapses can be ignored like the one in question.
Union Of India & Ors vs Gyan Chand Chattar on 28 May, 2009
Further, in the
case of Govt. of India & Ors v. Gyan Chand Chattar, relied upon by the
applicant in CA 4171/2003 dt. 28.05.2009, the IO in the said case relied on
non-existing material which is not the case in the present dispute. The
applicant has not contended that non existing material was considered by
the IO. Further, the IO in the cited case did not examine any witnesses
from whom demand of bribe was made. In the case on hand, they were
examined. Hence, the cited judgments are of no assistance to the applicant.
Other contentions made by the applicant have also been gone through and
in view of their irrelevance, they have not been referred to and dealt.
XVIII. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid circumstances, after
examining the contentions made by the applicant in a holistic manner, we
are of the view that the OA is devoid of merit, merits dismissal and hence,
dismissed with no order as to costs.
Moni Shankar vs Union Of India And Another on 4 March, 2008
Even in Moni Shankar v. Union of India Hon‟ble Apex court,
referring to its own judgment in Chief commercial Manger v Ratnam, has
observed that para 704/705 of Vigilance Manual which were later changed
as 306/307, are though procedural in nature, their infringement has to be
looked from the perspective of total violation and other factors.
Krishna Kumar vs Divisional Assistant Electrical ... on 17 July, 1979
X. Applicant took support of the judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in
Krishna Kumar v. Divisional Assistant Electrical Engineer & ors, in CA
755 of 1978 dt. 17.7.1979. We have gone through the judgment and in
the context of its application to the instant case, our view is as under:
Article 2 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Bharath Electronics Ltd. vs K. Kasi on 17 January, 1986
28. Justice M. Rama Jois of the Karnataka High Court had occasion to consider the
above aspect in Bharath Electronics Ltd. vs. K. Kasi, ILR 1987 Karnataka 366. In the
above case the order of domestic inquiry was challenged before the Labour and
Industrial Tribunal. The grounds taken were, that inquiry is vitiated since Presenting
Officer was not appointed and further Inquiry Officer played the role of prosecutor.
The State Of Bihar vs Phulpari Kumari on 6 December, 2019
appreciate the evidence, which is not permitted under law, as observed by
Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the State of Bihar vs Phulpari Kumari on 6
December, 2019 Civil Appeal No. 8782 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (C)
No.21197 of 2019), as under:
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The State Of Bihar And Ors vs Manoj Madhup And Anr on 29 January, 2020
E. The essence of the judgment is that any change in the status of the
appointing authority after the issue of offer of appointment would not be
acceptable to impose the penalty of dismissal/ removal. In the instant case,
it was the Sr. DCM who was competent as appointing authority to impose
the penalty of compulsory retirement as per Schedule III of schedule of
powers. There is no change in regard to the change of appointing authority
as envisaged in the judgment cited by applicant. Thus, a harmonious
reading of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court judgment in S.R. Chaudhuri cited
supra, Articles 311(1) & (2) of the Constitution and the one relied upon by
the applicant in Krishna Kumar, would make it explicit that the penalty
imposed by the Sr. DCM is within the domain of law. Consequently, the
averment that the DRM/ADRM granted grade pay of Rs.4200/4600, made
by the applicant in the context of the competency of disciplinary authority,
would not hold good. The aspects elaborated by us, as at above, have been
conclusively dealt by a larger Bench of Hon'ble Bihar High Court in
State of Bihar & Ors v. Manoj Madhup & Anr. in Letters Patent Appeal
No. 833/2014 in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11307/2011 decided on
29.1.2020, after referring to many judgments of the Hon‟ble Apex Court.
The judgment referred to by the applicant has also been discussed by the
Larger Bench and the relevant portions are extracted hereunder: