Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.31 seconds)
State Bank Of Bikaner & Jaipur & Ors vs Shri Prabhu Dayal Grover on 19 September, 1995 cites

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

In responding to the above contentions of Mr. Ahmad, Mr. Dutta appearing for Grover fairly conceded that he was unable to sustain the finding of the learned Courts below as regards the non-furnishing of the copy of the enquiry report in view of the judgment of this Court in ECIL (supra). He, however, strenuously urged that the other findings of the trial Court and the Appellate Court were unassailable. In elaborating his contentions he first submitted that the departmental enquiry in the instant case could have been - and indeed was - held in accordance with the Regulations and as admittedly the requirement of Regulation 68(2)(iii) was not complied with, the departmental proceedings must be said to be void ab initio.
Supreme Court of India Cites 64 - Cited by 2043 - Full Document

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

Mr. Altaf Ahmad, the learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the Bank first contended that the finding of the trial Court that the order of removal was bad as the report of the Enquiry Officer was not furnished to Grover before it was made, was liable to be set aside in view of the judgment of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Managing Director ECIL vs. B. Karunakar 1993 (4) SCC 727 wherein it has been held that orders of punishment passed prior to the date on which the decision in Union of India vs. Mohd. Ramzan (1991) 1 SCC 588 was made, that is on November 30, 1990 should not be disturbed for non-furnishing of the enquiry report and the disciplinary proceedings which gave rise to such orders should not be reopened on that account. As regards the finding of the trial Court that no definite and distinct charge had been framed against Grover and even statement of allegations had not been furnished as required under Rule 68 of the Regulations, Mr. Ahmad contended that the enquiry was not and could not have been held under the said Regulations as they came into effect on and from April 30, 1980 that is, after the proceeding against Grover was initiated. According to Mr. Ahmad, the enquiry in question was governed by and held strictly in accordance with the procedure laid down by the Bikaner Unit of the Bank in its Circular No.46 of 1961 dated March 6, 1961. He drew our attention to the following paragraph of the circular:
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 668 - R B Misra - Full Document

Surath Chandra Chakrabarty vs State Of West Bengal on 14 December, 1970

From the above resume it is evident that in setting aside the order of removal this Court was influenced primarily by the facts that the charges were totally vague and indefinite and that in spite of repeated requests made the disciplinary authority did not furnish the deliquent the detailed particulars thereby depriving him of his legitimate right to defend himself. It is in that context that the Court laid emphasis upon the requirement of furnishing the statement of allegations in Fundamental Rule 55; but it cannot be said that this Court laid down, as an abstract proposition of law in Surath Chandra's case that whenever there is a breach of any statutory rule in conducting a departmental enquiry it will render the entire proceeding bad, irrespective of the nature of the breach, as contended by Mr. Dutta.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 182 - A N Grover - Full Document

Ram Chander vs Union Of India & Ors on 2 May, 1986

Similarly, he contended, in view of this Court's pronouncements in Ram Chander vs. Union of India & Ors. 1986 (2) SCR 980, M.P. Industries vs. Union of India 1966(1) SCR 466, A.L. Kalra vs. The Project & Equipment Corporation of India Ltd. 1984 (3) SCR 646 and R.P. Bhatt vs. Union of India & Ors 1985 (Supp) 1 SCR 947, the orders of the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority could not be legally sustained as neither of them had given any reason for their respective decisions.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 290 - G L Oza - Full Document

A.L.Kalara vs The Project & Equipment Corporation Of ... on 1 May, 1984

Similarly, he contended, in view of this Court's pronouncements in Ram Chander vs. Union of India & Ors. 1986 (2) SCR 980, M.P. Industries vs. Union of India 1966(1) SCR 466, A.L. Kalra vs. The Project & Equipment Corporation of India Ltd. 1984 (3) SCR 646 and R.P. Bhatt vs. Union of India & Ors 1985 (Supp) 1 SCR 947, the orders of the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority could not be legally sustained as neither of them had given any reason for their respective decisions.
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 297 - D A Desai - Full Document
1