Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.21 seconds)
Union Of India Represented Through ... vs Manoj Kumar on 24 April, 2024 cites

Union Of India & Ors vs Gyan Chand Chattar on 28 May, 2009

(1977) 1 SLR 750] was reiterated : (Gyan Chand Chattar case [Union of India v. Gyan Chand Chattar, (2009) 12 SCC 78 : (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 129] , SCC p. 88, paras 35-36) "35. ... an enquiry is to be conducted against any person giving strict adherence to the statutory provisions and principles of natural justice. The charges should be specific, definite and giving details of the incident which formed the basis of charges. No enquiry can be sustained on vague charges. Enquiry has to be conducted fairly, objectively and not subjectively. Finding should not be 12 LPA No.201/2023 perverse or unreasonable, nor the same should be based on conjectures and surmises. There is a distinction in proof and suspicion. Every act or omission on the part of the delinquent cannot be a misconduct. The authority must record reasons for arriving at the finding of fact in the context of the statute defining the misconduct.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 229 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

Union Of India & Ors vs P.Gunasekaran on 3 November, 2014

23. This Court needs to refer herein before entering into the legality and propriety of the impugned, the principle which is to be 7 LPA No.201/2023 applied by way of power of judicial review in the matter of showing interference in the order passed by the administrative authority, is very least and it is to be exercised in certain condition or the reason, as has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Others vs. P. Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SSC 610. At paragraphs 12 and 13 thereof, the following guidelines have been laid down for showing interference in the decision taken by the disciplinary authority and not to interfere with the decision, which reads as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 856 - Full Document

Central Industrial Security Force And ... vs Abrar Ali on 14 December, 2016

24. Further, in Central Industrial Security Force and Ors. vs. Abrar Ali [(2017) 4 SCC 507], following guidelines have been laid down by the Apex Court for interference by the High Court in the matter of punishment imposed on conclusion of the departmental 9 LPA No.201/2023 proceeding. The extract of relevant passages, i.e., para 13 and 14, are referred hereinbelow:
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 98 - L N Rao - Full Document

The State Of Karnataka vs Umesh on 22 March, 2022

26. While on the other hand, in the departmental proceeding, even on the basis of preponderance of probability, the charge is to be proved. But, it is not that, only on the basis of preponderance of probability, the charge is to be proved, rather, even in order to come to the conclusion to prove the charge on the basis of the principle of preponderance of probability, some cogent evidence is to be there, reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka and Anr. vs. Umesh, reported in (2022) 6 SCC 563, wherein, at paragraphs- 11 LPA No.201/2023 18 & 19 it has been held that mere on probabilities, no punishment can be imposed in the departmental proceeding. For ready reference, the same is being referred as under:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 62 - D Y Chandrachud - Full Document
1