Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.27 seconds)
Shiv Nath Singh vs Union Of India And 4 Others on 5 October, 2021 cites

H.P. State Electricity Board Ltd vs Mahesh Dahiya on 18 November, 2016

21. Sri Ashok Khare, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has laid much emphasis in his argument that the disciplinary authority had formed opinion to dismiss the petitioner on the basis of findings returned by the Enquiry Officer without right of representation to the petitioner to object to the enquiry report. This contention is advanced with reference to the specific assertions made in the show cause notice, which would suggest that disciplinary authority examined report of the Enquiry Officer and had referred to the charges as also the evidence adduced before indicating proposed punishment to be awarded to the petitioner. Reliance is heavily placed upon para 26 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mahesh Dahiya (supra), which is reproduced hereinafter:
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 79 - Full Document

Akhilesh Kumar Singh vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 14 December, 2007

17. A specific transaction may give rise to different nature of misconduct, for different officials, depending upon their duties and nature of responsibility. Even imposition of separate penalty, arising out of similar charge can also be justified depending upon nature of duties and responsibilities to be performed. The Apex Court in Akhilesh Kumar Singh vs. State of Jharkhand reported in (2008) 2 SCC 74 observed that quantum of punishment imposed on a delinquent employee by the appointing authority, however, depends upon several factors. Conduct of delinquent officer as also the nature of charges, play a vital role in this behalf.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 25 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Chairman And Managing Director,United ... vs P.C.Kakkar Chairman And Managing ... on 11 February, 2003

We are of the view that the judgment of this Court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad (supra) is not helpful to the case of the appellant. Further, it is well settled that if the disciplinary authority accepts the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and passes an order, no detailed reasons are required to be recorded in the order imposing punishment. The punishment is imposed based on the findings recorded in the enquiry report, as such, no further elaborate reasons are required to be given by the disciplinary authority. As the departmental appeal was considered by the Board of Directors in the meeting held on 10.12.2005, the Board's decision is communicated vide order dated 21.12.2005 in Ref. No.LGB/I&V/Appeal/31/02/2005­06. In that view of the matter, we do not find any merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that orders impugned are devoid of reasons."
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 428 - A Pasayat - Full Document

The Disciplinary ... vs Nikunja Bihari Patnaik on 15 April, 1996

"14. A bank officer is required to exercise higher standards of honesty and integrity. He deals with the money of the depositors and the customers. Every officer/employee of the bank is required to take all possible steps to protect the interests of the bank and to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and to do nothing which is unbecoming of a bank officer. Good conduct and discipline are inseparable from the functioning of every officer/employee of the bank. As was observed by this Court in Disciplinary Authority-cum-Regional Manager vs. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik, it is no defence available to say that there was no loss or profit resulted in case, when the officer/employee acted without authority. The very discipline of an organization more particularly a bank is dependent upon each of its officers and officers acting and operating within their allotted sphere. Acting beyond one's authority is by itself a breach of discipline and is a misconduct. The charges against the employee were not casual in nature and were serious. These aspects do not appear to have been kept in view by the High Court."
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 296 - B P Reddy - Full Document

Oryx Fisheries Pvt.Ltd vs Union Of India & Ors on 29 October, 2010

"The essence of Mahesh Dahiya is a reiteration of the well settled principle that the delinquent employee is entitled to an opportunity to establish and prove before the Disciplinary Authority that the findings of guilt as recorded by the Enquiry Officer are not liable to be accepted. That is the quintessential purpose for the Disciplinary Authority being required to forward a copy of the enquiry report to the employee. At that stage and before the employee has had an occasion to respond to the report, the Disciplinary Authority must establish that the issue of guilt was one which is open for consideration and dependent upon the response that the employee is yet to furnish. The Authority in any case cannot proceed as if the issue is already predetermined. That would clearly render the opportunity of hearing as provided to the employee wholly otiose and meaningless. The question of punishment which is liable to be ultimately imposed likewise must be one which is established to be an issue which awaits consideration of the reply of the employee. A delinquent employee must not get the impression that his furnishing of a reply to the show cause notice will be an empty formality and the delinquent employee facing what the Supreme Court chose to describe as the "impenetrable fortress of prejudged opinion" in Oryx Fisheries Private Limited Vs. Union of India [(2010) 13 SCC 427]. If these inherent inhibitions were to be ignored it would inevitably lead to an allegation of bias being levelled on the part of the Disciplinary Authority.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 668 - Full Document
1