Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.48 seconds)
Anil Kumar Saxena vs State Of U.P.Thru The Prin. Secy. Deptt. ... on 31 May, 2019 cites

Govind Lal Srivastava vs State Of U.P. And Ors. on 28 September, 2004

14. A Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Govind Lal Srivastava versus State of U.P. and others: (2005) 23 LCD 495 has held that it is cardinal principle of law that in a domestic enquiry, the charges levelled against the delinquent officer have to be proved by the department itself, that too from material on record and afford opportunity to delinquent officer to falsify or belie the case of department and detailed the procedure of enquiry. The relevant paragraphs 12 and 13 are reproduced as under:
Allahabad High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Radhey Kant Khare vs U.P. Co-Operative Sugar Factories ... on 19 November, 2002

16. The Division Bench of this Court, after considering a number of cases, in the case of Radhey Kant Khare versus U.P. Cooperative Sugar Factories Federation Ltd.; 2003 (21) LCD 610 highlighted the importance of conducting an enquiry in a departmental proceedings and held that after a charge-sheet is given to the employee, an oral enquiry is a must, whether the employee requests for it or not.
Allahabad High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 92 - M Katju - Full Document

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

22. In view of above, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed. However, since the impugned orders are being quashed on the technical ground of violation of principles of natural justice,therefore in view of the Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Managing Director ECIL versus B. Karunakar;(1993) 4 SCC 727, liberty is required to be granted to the respondents to hold the enquiry afresh from the stage it is vitiated after affording opportunity to the petitioner in accordance with law.
Supreme Court of India Cites 64 - Cited by 2043 - Full Document
1