Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.35 seconds)
Punjab National Bank And Ors.The Chief ... vs Sh. Kunj Behari Misra, Sh. Shanti Prasad ... on 19 August, 1998 cites

State Bank Of India vs S.S.Koshal on 12 January, 1994

Sh. Sunil Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent, drew our attention to the decision in the case of Institute of chartered Accountant of India (supra). The respondent therein, who was a chartered accountant, was accused of misconduct. An inquiry was instituted under the Chartered Accountants Act 1949. The disciplinary committee after hearing Ratna submitted its report to the Council opining that he was guilty of professional misconduct. The Council considered the report of the disciplinary committee and found him guilty of misconduct and thereupon the Institute wrote to Ratna that the Council had found him guilty of professional misconduct and it was proposed to remove his name from the register of members for a period not exceeding five years. Thereupon a writ petition was filed by Ratna in the Bombay High Court which was allowed with the finding that the Council should have given an opportunity to Ratna to represent before it against the report of the disciplinary committee. While affirming the decision of the High Court and coming to the conclusion that a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants accused of misconduct is entitled to hearing by the Council when, on receipt of the report of the disciplinary committee, it proceeds to find whether he is or is not guilty, this Court at page 550 observed as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 77 - B P Reddy - Full Document

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

Under Regulation - 6 the inquiry proceedings can be conducted either by an inquiry officer or by the disciplinary authority itself. When the inquiry is conducted by the inquiry officer his report is not final or conclusive and the disciplinary proceedings do not stand concluded. The disciplinary proceedings stand concluded with decision of the disciplinary authority. It is the disciplinary authority which can impose the penalty and not the inquiry officer. Where the disciplinary authority itself holds an inquiry an opportunity of hearing has to be granted by him. When the disciplinary authority differs with the view of the inquiry officer and proposes to come to a different conclusion, there is no reason as to why an opportunity of hearing should not be granted. It will be most unfair and iniquitous that where the charged officers succeed before the inquiry officer they are deprived of representing to the disciplinary authority before that authority differs with the inquiry officer's report and, while recording of guilt, imposes punishment on the officer. In our opinion, in any such situation the charged officer must have an opportunity to represent before the Disciplinary Authority before final findings on the charges are recorded and punishment imposed. This is required to be done as a part of the first stage of inquiry as explained in Karunakar's case(supra).
Supreme Court of India Cites 64 - Cited by 2043 - Full Document

Union Of India And Ors vs Mohd. Ramzan Khan on 20 November, 1990

it was also submitted by Sh. Reddy that if before the decision of this Court in union of India and Ors. Vs. Mohd Ramzan Khan [(1991) 1 SCC 588} the disciplinary authority did not have to give to the delinquent officer the inquiry report then it was not necessary to give him a hearing in case where the disciplinary authority differed from the inquiry report as no copy of the inquiry report was to be given to him.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 668 - R B Misra - Full Document

Mahendra Kumar Shastri vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 10 January, 1983

" So far as the second ground is concerned, we are unable to see any substance in it. N such fresh opportunity is contemplated by the regulations nor can such a requirement be deduced from the principles of natural justice. It may be remembered that the inquiry officer's report is not binding upon the disciplinary authority and that it is open to the disciplinary authority to come to its own conclusion on the charges. It is not in the nature of an appeal from the inquiry officer to the disciplinary authority. It is one and the same proceeding. It is open to a disciplinary authority to hold the inquiry himself. It is equally open to him to appoint an inquiry officer to conduct the inquiry and place the entire record before hm with or without his findings. But in either case, the final decision is to be taken by him on the basis of the material adduced. This also appears to be the view taken by one of us (B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J) as a Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Mahendra Kumar V. Union of India. The second contention accordingly stands rejected."
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 28 - Full Document

State Of Assam & Another vs Bimal Kumar Pandit on 12 February, 1963

These observations are clearly in tune with the observations in Bimal Kumar Pandit's case (supra) quoted earlier and would be applicable at the first stage itself. the aforesaid passages clearly bring out the necessity of the authority which is to finally record an adverse finding to give a hearing to the delinquent officer. If the inquiry officer had given an adverse finding, as per Karunakar's case (supra) the first stage required an opportunity to be given to the employee to represent to the disciplinary authority, even when an earlier opportunity had been granted to them by the inquiry officer. It will not stand to reason that when the finding in favour of the delinquent officers is proposed to be over-turned by the disciplinary authority then no opportunity should be granted. The first stage of the inquiry is not completed till the disciplinary authority has recorded its findings. The principles of natural justice would demand that the authority which proposes to decide against the delinquent officer must give him a hearing. When the inquiring officer holds the charges to be proved then that report has to be given to the delinquent officer who can make a representation before the disciplinary authority takes further action which may be prejudicial to the delinquent officer. When, like in the present case, the inquiry report is in favour of the delinquent officer but the disciplinary authority proposes to differ with such conclusions then that authority which is deciding against the delinquent officer must give him an opportunity of being heard for otherwise he would be condemned unheard. In departmental proceedings what is of ultimate importance is the findings of the disciplinary authority.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 142 - P B Gajendragadkar - Full Document
1