Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.23 seconds)
Bhaskar Chandra Mohapatra vs The Disciplinary Authority, Uco Bank ... on 14 July, 2015 cites

State Bank Of Bikaner & Jaipur vs Nemi Chand Nalwaya on 1 March, 2011

5. To the above facts pleaded by the parties, it appears that in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 19 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, the Board of Directors of UCO Bank in consultation with the Reserve Bank and with previous sanction of the central Government framed regulation called "UCO Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976". Regulation 4 deals with penalties wherein it has been stated penalties mentioned therein may be imposed on an officer- employee for act of misconduct or for any other good and sufficient reasons and entire penalties have been classified as minor penalties as indicated in Sub-Regulations (a) to (e) and major penalties has been classified from Sub-Regulation (f) to (j). Dismissal which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment has been classified under Sub Clause (j) of Regulation 4, which has been imposed on the present petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority in the impugned order and has 6 been confirmed by the Appellate Authority. The apex Court time and again in State Bank of India v. Ram Lal Bhaskar and another, (2011) 10 SCC 249, State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur v. Nemi Chand Nalwaya (2011) 4 SCC 584 and State Bank of India and others v. Ramesh Dinkar Punde 2006 (7) SCC 212 has held that the Court cannot act as an appellate authority over the orders passed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority. Therefore, in exercise of judicial review, this Court can only examine whether there is infraction of any statutory provision governing the field while following the procedure and if there is procedural lapses, in that case, the Court can interfere with the same.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 335 - Full Document

State Bank Of India & Ors vs Ramesh Dinkar Punde on 11 August, 2006

5. To the above facts pleaded by the parties, it appears that in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 19 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, the Board of Directors of UCO Bank in consultation with the Reserve Bank and with previous sanction of the central Government framed regulation called "UCO Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976". Regulation 4 deals with penalties wherein it has been stated penalties mentioned therein may be imposed on an officer- employee for act of misconduct or for any other good and sufficient reasons and entire penalties have been classified as minor penalties as indicated in Sub-Regulations (a) to (e) and major penalties has been classified from Sub-Regulation (f) to (j). Dismissal which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment has been classified under Sub Clause (j) of Regulation 4, which has been imposed on the present petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority in the impugned order and has 6 been confirmed by the Appellate Authority. The apex Court time and again in State Bank of India v. Ram Lal Bhaskar and another, (2011) 10 SCC 249, State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur v. Nemi Chand Nalwaya (2011) 4 SCC 584 and State Bank of India and others v. Ramesh Dinkar Punde 2006 (7) SCC 212 has held that the Court cannot act as an appellate authority over the orders passed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority. Therefore, in exercise of judicial review, this Court can only examine whether there is infraction of any statutory provision governing the field while following the procedure and if there is procedural lapses, in that case, the Court can interfere with the same.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 140 - H K Sema - Full Document

Siba Prasad Pattnaik vs State Of Orissa And Others on 5 May, 2015

Similar view has also been taken by this Court in Siba Prasad Pattnaik v. State of Orissa and others (OJC No. 8703 of 2001) disposed of on 05.05.2015. Keeping in view the above parameters laid down by the apex Court as well as this Court, it appears that under Regulation-6 of 1976 Regulation, procedure for imposing major penalties has been envisaged. Sub-regulation 13 of Regulation 6 reads as follows:
Orissa High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 3 - B R Sarangi - Full Document

Ranjit Thakur vs Union Of India And Ors on 15 October, 1987

The superior Courts and the Tribunal invoke the doctrine of proportionality which has been gradually accepted as one of the facets of judicial review. Where punishment is excessive or disproportionate to the offence so as to shock the conscience of the Court and is unacceptable even then Courts should be slow and generally reluctant to interfere with the quantum of punishment. The law on the subject is well settled by a series of decision rendered by the superior Court. This view has also been taken in Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India, (1987) 4 SCC 611 : AIR 1987 SC 2386, Dev Singh v. Punjab Tourism Development Corporation Limited, (2003) 8 SCC 9 :
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 731 - A P Sen - Full Document
1   2 Next