Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.23 seconds)
Uoi vs Shri Raghubir Singh on 20 May, 2010 cites

Union Of India & Ors vs Prakash Kumar Tandon on 17 December, 2008

The learned counsel for the respondent, Mr.A.K.Behera has relied on 2009 (91) SCT 563, Union of India &Ors v. Prakash Kumar Tandon holding that the enquiry officer could not be from the vigilance department as there could be an element of bias to substantiate the finding as a vigilance officer during the enquiry proceeding also and it would be in W.P.(C) Nos.13638, 13625, 13626, 13629, 13634, 13635, 13636, 13637, 13639, 13640/2009 Page 12 of 19 violation of the principles of natural justice.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 140 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Shri Giriraj Prasad Meena vs Union Of India Through on 18 September, 2009

3. The respondents had challenged the different charge sheets initiated against them, inter alia, on the ground that they had sought additional documents required for defense and for the purpose of effective cross examination such as their personal files and assumed duty register including pay rolls, muster rolls etc. However, these documents were not produced by the petitioner without any rational justification. Before the Tribunal, the order of punishment was also challenged on the ground that though in Giriraj Prasad Meena v. Union of India and ors, O.A No.1615/2008 decided on 9th February, 2009 and Sh.Jagbir Singh and Ors v. Union of India & Ors being O.A No.1357/2007 connected with O.A No.1413/2007 decided on 19th September, 2007 the revisional authorities were directed to pass a reasoned order, however, the direction of the Tribunal was not complied W.P.(C) Nos.13638, 13625, 13626, 13629, 13634, 13635, 13636, 13637, 13639, 13640/2009 Page 5 of 19 with. It was contended by the respondents that there was no direct evidence against them that they had obtained bogus cards or had forged the cards, however, by a non speaking order and merely on suspicion and on the basis of preponderance of probability the penalty for compulsory retirement had been imposed. The penalty imposed was also challenged on the ground that pay slips, pay register, muster roll, assumed duty register and personal files were not produced which was the best evidence available with the petitioner to demonstrate that the respondent had not worked as casual labour but had obtained a bogus casual labour certificate and in the circumstances the defense of the respondents was gravely effected and that they were also deprived of a reasonable opportunity.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 9 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Union Of India & Ors. vs Shri Ram Kishan on 23 December, 2009

12. The respondent would forge the bogus casual labour card only if they had not worked during the period they were alleged to have been employed as a casual labour. If the respondent had not been employed as a casual labour this would be reflected from the documents which were sought by the respondents which included pay rolls, muster rolls, personal files, assumed duty register etc. The petitioners had not produced these documents nor had disclosed any cogent reason for not producing the same. Rather in Ram Kishan (Supra), the Tribunal had set aside the enquiry proceedings on account of inordinate delay and on account of not producing these relevant documents which are muster rolls, attendance register of the relevant period in case of Khalasi under Northern Railways who were also accused of forging the casual labour card and had set aside the enquiry proceedings which order was upheld by this Court in W.P(C) 13894/2009 titled as Union of India & Ors v. Shri Ram Kishan.
Delhi High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 14 - V Sanghi - Full Document

Virender Pal Singh vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 15 January, 2002

1. This common order will dispose of all the above noted writ petitions which have been filed against the common order dated 18th September, 2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, W.P.(C) Nos.13638, 13625, 13626, 13629, 13634, 13635, 13636, 13637, 13639, 13640/2009 Page 3 of 19 Principal Bench in OA 1042/2009 titled as Sh. Manjuddin Khan Vs. Union of India through General Manager Northern Railway; OA No. 1096/2009 titled as Sh. Raghubir Singh Vs. Union of India through General Manager Northern Railway; OA No. 1105/2009 in Shri Ram Dayal Meena Vs. Union of India through General Manager Northern Railway; OA 1116/2009 in Shri Sharif Mohd. Vs Union of India through General Manager Northern Railway; OA No. 1119/2009 in Shri Kailash Chand Barwa Vs. Union of India through General Manager Northern Railway; OA 1140/2009 in Shri Hari Narain Verma Vs. Union of India through General Manager Northern Railway; OA 1219/2009 in Shri Shakrudeen Khan Vs. Union of India through General Manager Northern Railway; OA 1221/2009 in Shri Virender Pal Singh Vs. Union of India through General Manager Northern Railway; OA 1234/2009 in Shri Nissar Khan Vs. Union of India through General Manager Northern Railway; OA 1277/2009 in Shri Giriraj Prasad Meena Vs. Union of India through General Manager Northern Railway, whereby the original applications of the respondents in different writ petitions were allowed and the impugned order passed against the respondents were set aside and the petitioners were directed to reinstate the respondents in different writ petitions forthwith. The respondents were also held to be entitled to consequential benefits as admissible in law. However, the petitioners were permitted to initiate the inquiry from the stage of initiation of inquiry which was directed to be entrusted to an officer other than the officers from vigilance department of the petitioner. W.P.(C) Nos.13638, 13625, 13626, 13629,
Delhi High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 19 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Sh. Raghubir Singh (Retd) vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 12 January, 2007

1. This common order will dispose of all the above noted writ petitions which have been filed against the common order dated 18th September, 2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, W.P.(C) Nos.13638, 13625, 13626, 13629, 13634, 13635, 13636, 13637, 13639, 13640/2009 Page 3 of 19 Principal Bench in OA 1042/2009 titled as Sh. Manjuddin Khan Vs. Union of India through General Manager Northern Railway; OA No. 1096/2009 titled as Sh. Raghubir Singh Vs. Union of India through General Manager Northern Railway; OA No. 1105/2009 in Shri Ram Dayal Meena Vs. Union of India through General Manager Northern Railway; OA 1116/2009 in Shri Sharif Mohd. Vs Union of India through General Manager Northern Railway; OA No. 1119/2009 in Shri Kailash Chand Barwa Vs. Union of India through General Manager Northern Railway; OA 1140/2009 in Shri Hari Narain Verma Vs. Union of India through General Manager Northern Railway; OA 1219/2009 in Shri Shakrudeen Khan Vs. Union of India through General Manager Northern Railway; OA 1221/2009 in Shri Virender Pal Singh Vs. Union of India through General Manager Northern Railway; OA 1234/2009 in Shri Nissar Khan Vs. Union of India through General Manager Northern Railway; OA 1277/2009 in Shri Giriraj Prasad Meena Vs. Union of India through General Manager Northern Railway, whereby the original applications of the respondents in different writ petitions were allowed and the impugned order passed against the respondents were set aside and the petitioners were directed to reinstate the respondents in different writ petitions forthwith. The respondents were also held to be entitled to consequential benefits as admissible in law. However, the petitioners were permitted to initiate the inquiry from the stage of initiation of inquiry which was directed to be entrusted to an officer other than the officers from vigilance department of the petitioner. W.P.(C) Nos.13638, 13625, 13626, 13629,
Delhi High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 28 - V Sanghi - Full Document

Triloki Nath Tripathi vs Allahabad Divisional Branch Of All ... on 13 September, 1956

Reliance was also placed by the respondent on Trilok Nath v. Union of India & Ors, 1967 SLR SC 759 and Mahabir Singh & Ors v. Union of India & Ors, 2000 (3) ATJ CAT I to contend that a casual labour card was not to be approved for employment of casual workers and therefore, in the circumstances there was no necessity or requirement for the respondent to have obtained the bogus card.
Allahabad High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 49 - Full Document

Smt. Meera Devi Aged About 51 Years Wife ... vs Union Of India Through General Manager on 14 May, 2010

1. This common order will dispose of all the above noted writ petitions which have been filed against the common order dated 18th September, 2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, W.P.(C) Nos.13638, 13625, 13626, 13629, 13634, 13635, 13636, 13637, 13639, 13640/2009 Page 3 of 19 Principal Bench in OA 1042/2009 titled as Sh. Manjuddin Khan Vs. Union of India through General Manager Northern Railway; OA No. 1096/2009 titled as Sh. Raghubir Singh Vs. Union of India through General Manager Northern Railway; OA No. 1105/2009 in Shri Ram Dayal Meena Vs. Union of India through General Manager Northern Railway; OA 1116/2009 in Shri Sharif Mohd. Vs Union of India through General Manager Northern Railway; OA No. 1119/2009 in Shri Kailash Chand Barwa Vs. Union of India through General Manager Northern Railway; OA 1140/2009 in Shri Hari Narain Verma Vs. Union of India through General Manager Northern Railway; OA 1219/2009 in Shri Shakrudeen Khan Vs. Union of India through General Manager Northern Railway; OA 1221/2009 in Shri Virender Pal Singh Vs. Union of India through General Manager Northern Railway; OA 1234/2009 in Shri Nissar Khan Vs. Union of India through General Manager Northern Railway; OA 1277/2009 in Shri Giriraj Prasad Meena Vs. Union of India through General Manager Northern Railway, whereby the original applications of the respondents in different writ petitions were allowed and the impugned order passed against the respondents were set aside and the petitioners were directed to reinstate the respondents in different writ petitions forthwith. The respondents were also held to be entitled to consequential benefits as admissible in law. However, the petitioners were permitted to initiate the inquiry from the stage of initiation of inquiry which was directed to be entrusted to an officer other than the officers from vigilance department of the petitioner. W.P.(C) Nos.13638, 13625, 13626, 13629,
Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad Cites 2 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Union Of India & Ors vs Gyan Chand Chattar on 28 May, 2009

8. While setting aside the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed by the petitioner, the Tribunal also relied on Union of India & Ors. Vs. Gyan Chand Chattar, 2009 (8) SCALE 575, holding that there is a distinction between proof and suspicion and an employee cannot be W.P.(C) Nos.13638, 13625, 13626, 13629, 13634, 13635, 13636, 13637, 13639, 13640/2009 Page 9 of 19 punished merely on the basis of suspicion.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 229 - B S Chauhan - Full Document
1   2 Next