Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.22 seconds)
Arun Kumar Hazra vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 17 January, 2012 cites

Board Of Trustees Of The Port Of Bombay vs Dilipkumar Raghavendranath Nadkarni ... on 17 November, 1982

"3. It is no doubt true that in the rules governing the disciplinary proceedings no provision is made with regard to payment of fees or remuneration to the legal practitioner who is permitted to assist the government servant in cases where the Presenting Officer appointed by the disciplinary authority is a legal practitioner. Explaining this right of a government servant to seek the assistance of a legal practitioner in cases where the Presenting Officer happens to be the legal practitioner, this Court in Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Dilipkumar Raghavendranath Nadkarni has said: (SCC p. 130, para 10) "The Inquiry Officer combines the judge and prosecutor rolled into one. Witnesses are generally employees of the employer who directs an enquiry into misconduct. This is sufficient to raise serious apprehensions. Add to these uneven scales, the weight of legally trained minds on behalf of employer simultaneously denying that opportunity to delinquent employee. The weighted scales and tilted balance can only be partly restored if the delinquent is given the same legal assistance as the employer enjoys. Justice must not only be done but must seem to be done is not a euphemism for courts alone, it applies with equal vigour and rigour to all those who must be responsible for fair play in action. And a quasi-judicial tribunal cannot view the matter with equanimity on inequality of representation.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 295 - D A Desai - Full Document

State Of U.P. & Ors vs Saroj Kumar Sinha on 2 February, 2010

There is no dispute to the proposition of law that ordinarily the court should not depart from the normal rule of procedure by permitting the litigant to take a new plea without insisting for amendment of the pleading. The reason behind it is obvious that such new fact would adversely affect the other side by taking him to surprise and a sufficient opportunity to canvass his case in counter pleading should be given. As has been held in case of Saraj Kumar Sinha (supra), subsequent event can be brought by way of a supplementary affidavit, the writ petition cannot be thrown out of consideration merely because the subsequent event was not incorporated by way of an amendment but have been allowed to be agitated by filing supplementary affidavit.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 718 - S S Nijjar - Full Document

State Of Bihar & Another Etc. Etc., Dr. ... vs Radha K. Jha & Ors. Etc, The State Of Bihar ... on 22 July, 2002

He submits that the writ petition is not maintainable against the issuance of the second show cause notice. He further submits that the court can take into consideration the subsequent events only for the purpose of molding the relief but could not grant the relief in absence of any factual foundation in the pleading and placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Ram Roy & Ors. vs. All India Backward Class Bank Employees' Welfare Association & Ors. reported in (2004) 2 SCC 76 and in case of State of Bihar & anr. Vs. Dr Radha Krishna Jha & ors. and Dr Radha Krishna Jha & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in (2002) 6 SCC 308.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 35 - B Kumar - Full Document

M/S Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. ... vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Ors on 12 December, 1978

The Apex Court in case of Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Company Ltd. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (1979) 2 SCC 409 was considering a plea of waiver having taken at the time of hearing and held that such plea cannot be allowed in absence of amendment of a pleading or by filing a supplementary affidavit raising such plea in these words:
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 1143 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

C. L. Subramaniam vs Collector Of Customs, Cochin on 15 February, 1972

In C.L Subramaniam v. Collector of Customs, Cochin, (1972) 3 SCR 485 : (AIR 1972 SC 2178) a Government employees requested the Enquiry Officer to permit him to appear through a legal practitioner and even though a trained public prosecutor was appointed as Presenting Officer, this request was turned down. When the matter reached this Court, it was held that the enquiry was in breach of the principles of natural justice. The order of the domestic tribunal was sought to be sustained on the submission that sub-rule (5) of Rule 15 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 lays that "...The Government servant may present his case with the assistance of any Government servant approved by the Disciplinary Authority as aforesaid is a legal practitioner or unless the Disciplinary Authority, having regard to the circumstances of the case, so permits." The submission was that it is a matter within the discretion of the Enquiry Officer whether to grant permission and more so because the relevant rule fetters the claim to appear through a legal practitioner. Negativing this contention, this Court held that the fact that the case against the appellant was being handled by a trained prosecutor was by itself a good ground for allowing the appellant to engage a legal practitioner to defend him lest the scales should be weighted against him.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 108 - K S Hegde - Full Document

Director, Bcg Vaccine Laboratory, ... vs S. Pandian And Ors. on 24 April, 1996

The denial of a permission to defend a delinquent through a legal practitioner when the employer is conducting a disciplinary proceeding through a legally trend minds would result into uneven skills and the balance is tilted against the delinquent. There must be a fair attitude and fair play in action against an employee who is at the risk of being punished which includes the removal or dismissal from service. The view expressed in Dilipkumar Raghavendranath Nadkarni (supra) is reiterated in a subsequent judgment rendered by the supreme court in case of Director, BCG Vaxin Laboratory Madras vs. S Pandian and Ors. reported in (1997) 11 SCC 346 in the following:
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 10 - S C Agrawal - Full Document

Bhaskar Chandra Maity vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 16 December, 2011

In case of Bhaskar Maity (supra) the Co-ordinate Bench was considering a writ petition where challenge was made to a notice dated 23.11.2010 having issued in contravention to section 12(11) of the relevant act. The said writ petition was filed on 28th December, 2010 whereas on December 3, 2010 a resolution was taken by the organization by filing the supplementary affidavit. The said resolution was sought to be impugned in the writ petition. In such perspective it was held that the said fact was known to the petitioner prior to the institutions of the writ petition and the same amounts to suppression of materials fact. However, an observation is made by placing reliance upon a judgment of this court reported in 2009 (2) CHN 947, 2003 (4) CLJ 333 deprecating the bringing of the subsequent events on record by filing a supplementary affidavit. It is noticed from the said unreported judgment that the fact which existed prior to the institutions of the writ petition was sought to be incorporated by way of a supplementary affidavit and in such perspective while holding that the same amounts to suppression of material fact and an observation is made that subsequent event cannot be brought by way of supplementary affidavit.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 0 - Cited by 1 - N Patherya - Full Document
1