Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 21 (0.31 seconds)
A. Rajendra Panicker vs Kerala State Warehousing Corporation on 11 August, 2005 cites

State Bank Of Patiala & Ors vs S.K.Sharma on 27 March, 1996

90. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the rejection of the petitioner's request for defence assistance vitiates the enquiry for violation of principles of natural justice. Counsel would also submit that the petitioner had filed a petition before this Court in this pending writ petition, seeking a direction to permit him to engage the assistance of Sri.Chandrakant, in which the 1st respondent filed a counter affidavit on 20-9-2004 suppressing the fact that the enquiry was already over and the Enquiry Officer had submitted her report on 15-9-2004. He would submit that the Enquiry Officer knowing about the intention of the petitioner to move this Court, completed the enquiry ex parte, thus showing undue haste to foreclose the petitioner's right to be represented by a defence assistant of his choice in the enquiry. Counsel for the petitioner on the strength of the decisions of C.L.Subramaniam v. The Collector of Customs, AIR@@ CCCCCCCCCCCCCCC CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC 1972 SC 2178, The Board of Trustees of the Port of@@ CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC Bombay v. Dilipkumar Raghavendra Nadkarni and@@ CCCCCC CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC others, AIR 1983 SC 109, J.K.Agarwal v. Haryana@@ CCCCCC CCCCCCCCCCC CCCCCCC Seeds Development Corporation, AIR 1991 SC 1221,@@ CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC Union of India v. Karunakaran Nair, 1985 KLT 680,@@ CCCCCCCCCCCCCCC CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC Stephen v. Commandant, 2004(1) KLT S.N.38 (Case@@ CCCCCCC CCCCCCCCCCC No.47) and K.Sreedharan v. Chief Security Commr.@@ CCCCCCCCCCCC CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC and 2 others, 1993 (1) KLJ 430, would contend that@@ CCCCCCCCCCCC right to be assisted by a co-employee of his choice or a lawyer is ingrained in the principles of natural justice and since the same has been denied to him in the enquiry, the enquiry is vitiated.
Supreme Court of India Cites 29 - Cited by 1234 - B P Reddy - Full Document

Apparel Export Promotion Council vs A.K. Chopra on 20 January, 1999

96. The next issue is regarding the proportionality of punishment. The jurisdiction of Court/Tribunal to interfere with the punishment has been discussed in almost all the cases discussed by me while discussing the legal position regarding jurisdiction in general to interfere with disciplinary enquiries. As held in B.C.Chathuvedi's@@ CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC case and Apparel Export Promotion Council's case@@ CCCC CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC supra, the only circumstance warranting interference by Court/Tribunal in punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is where the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority shocks the conscience of the Court and the Court held that if it does, "it would appropriately mould the relief either directing the disciplinary/appellate authority to reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof."
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 566 - V N Khare - Full Document

A. K. Kraipak & Ors. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors on 29 April, 1969

664.) As pointed out by this Court in A.K.Kraipak v. Union of India, (1969) 2 SCC 262, the dividing line between quasi-judicial function and administrative function (affecting the rights of a party) has become quite thin and almost indistinguishable - a fact also emphasised by House of Lords in Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service, (1984) 3 All ER 935 where the principles of natural justice and a fair hearing were treated as synonymous. Whichever the case, it is from the standpoint of fair hearing - applying the test of prejudice, as it may be called - that any and every complaint of violation of the rule of audi alteram partem should be examined. Indeed, there may be situation where observance of the requirement of prior notice/hearing may defeat the very proceeding - which may result in grave prejudice to public interest.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 1426 - Full Document

Liberty Oil Mills & Others vs Union Of India & Others on 1 May, 1984

It is for this reason that the rule of post-decisional hearing as a sufficient compliance with natural justice was evolved in some of the cases, e.g. Liberty Oil Mills v. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 465. There may also be cases where the public interest or the interest of the security of State or other similar considerations may make it inadvisable to observe the rule of audi alteram partem altogether as in the case of situations contemplated by clauses (b) and (c) of the proviso to Article 311(2) or to disclose the material on which a particular action is being taken. There may indeed be any number of varying situations which it is not possible for anyone to foresee. In our respectful opinion, the principles emerging from the decided cases can be stated in the following terms in relation to the disciplinary orders and enquiries; a distinction ought to be made between violation of the principle of natural justice, audi alteram partem, as such and violation of a facet of the said principle. In other words, distinction is between "no notice"/"no hearing" and "no adequate hearing"
Supreme Court of India Cites 36 - Cited by 570 - O C Reddy - Full Document

Managing Director Ecil Hyderabad Etc. ... vs B. Karunakar Etc. Etc on 1 October, 1993

But, where the person is dismissed from service, say, without supplying him a copy of the enquiry officer's report (Managing Director, ECIL v. B.Karunakar, (1993) 4 SCC 727) or without affording him a due opportunity of cross-examining a witness (K.L.Tripathi, (1984) SCC 43) it would be a case falling in the latter category violation of a facet of the said rule of natural justice in which case, the validity of the order has to be tested on the touchstone of prejudice, i.e., whether, all in all, the person concerned did or did not have a fair hearing. It would not be correct - in the light of the above decisions to say that for any and every violation of a facet of natural justice or of a rule incorporating such facet, the order passed is altogether void and ought to be set aside without further enquiry. In our opinion, the approach and test adopted in B.Karunakar should govern all cases where the complaint is not that there was no hearing (no notice, no opportunity and no hearing) but one of not affording a proper hearing (i.e. adequate or a full hearing) or of violation of a procedural rule or requirement governing the enquiry; the complaint should be examined on the touchstone of prejudice as aforesaid."
Supreme Court of India Cites 64 - Cited by 2043 - Full Document

C. L. Subramaniam vs Collector Of Customs, Cochin on 15 February, 1972

90. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the rejection of the petitioner's request for defence assistance vitiates the enquiry for violation of principles of natural justice. Counsel would also submit that the petitioner had filed a petition before this Court in this pending writ petition, seeking a direction to permit him to engage the assistance of Sri.Chandrakant, in which the 1st respondent filed a counter affidavit on 20-9-2004 suppressing the fact that the enquiry was already over and the Enquiry Officer had submitted her report on 15-9-2004. He would submit that the Enquiry Officer knowing about the intention of the petitioner to move this Court, completed the enquiry ex parte, thus showing undue haste to foreclose the petitioner's right to be represented by a defence assistant of his choice in the enquiry. Counsel for the petitioner on the strength of the decisions of C.L.Subramaniam v. The Collector of Customs, AIR@@ CCCCCCCCCCCCCCC CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC 1972 SC 2178, The Board of Trustees of the Port of@@ CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC Bombay v. Dilipkumar Raghavendra Nadkarni and@@ CCCCCC CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC others, AIR 1983 SC 109, J.K.Agarwal v. Haryana@@ CCCCCC CCCCCCCCCCC CCCCCCC Seeds Development Corporation, AIR 1991 SC 1221,@@ CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC Union of India v. Karunakaran Nair, 1985 KLT 680,@@ CCCCCCCCCCCCCCC CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC Stephen v. Commandant, 2004(1) KLT S.N.38 (Case@@ CCCCCCC CCCCCCCCCCC No.47) and K.Sreedharan v. Chief Security Commr.@@ CCCCCCCCCCCC CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC and 2 others, 1993 (1) KLJ 430, would contend that@@ CCCCCCCCCCCC right to be assisted by a co-employee of his choice or a lawyer is ingrained in the principles of natural justice and since the same has been denied to him in the enquiry, the enquiry is vitiated.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 108 - K S Hegde - Full Document
1   2 3 Next