Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.21 seconds)
K.S. Mayalekshmi vs Union Of India on 5 August, 2011 cites

S.V. Santhoshkumar vs The Comptroller & Auditor General Of ... on 22 September, 2010

9. We may, in this connection also, refer to a similar view taken by the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in O.A.247/10 and connected cases dated 22.9.2010 - S.V.Santhoshkumar & others Vs. The Comptroller and Auditor General of India & others and two other decisions of this Tribunal in O.A.768/10 and connected cases dated 15.11.2010 -
Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam Cites 7 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

Krishnadas A.K vs The Comptroller & Auditor General Of ... on 15 November, 2010

Krishnadas A.K & others Vs. The Comptroller and Auditor General of India & others and O.A.872/09 dated 15.3.2011 - Santhosh Kumar S.V. Vs. The Deputy Comptroller and Auditor General & others. In O.A.247/10 and connected cases decided on 22.9.2010 this question was considered and there are observations which also supports the same view as we have taken that the discretion is vested on the Disciplinary Authority to hold an inquiry before imposing a minor penalty not covered by (1-A) of Rule 16. It was held in these two batch of cases, however, after examining the particular facts of these cases that decision not to hold an inquiry is vitiated as circumstances warrants holding of an inquiry. In other words, it was held that the decision not to hold an inquiry in the given set of facts is arbitrary and on that ground the order imposing punishment was set aside leaving open the right of the employer to proceed to hold an inquiry and take appropriate action, if so advised.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam Cites 0 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Santhosh Kumar S.V vs The Deputy Comptroller And Auditor ... on 15 March, 2011

Krishnadas A.K & others Vs. The Comptroller and Auditor General of India & others and O.A.872/09 dated 15.3.2011 - Santhosh Kumar S.V. Vs. The Deputy Comptroller and Auditor General & others. In O.A.247/10 and connected cases decided on 22.9.2010 this question was considered and there are observations which also supports the same view as we have taken that the discretion is vested on the Disciplinary Authority to hold an inquiry before imposing a minor penalty not covered by (1-A) of Rule 16. It was held in these two batch of cases, however, after examining the particular facts of these cases that decision not to hold an inquiry is vitiated as circumstances warrants holding of an inquiry. In other words, it was held that the decision not to hold an inquiry in the given set of facts is arbitrary and on that ground the order imposing punishment was set aside leaving open the right of the employer to proceed to hold an inquiry and take appropriate action, if so advised.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam Cites 3 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1