Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.34 seconds)
P Swain vs D/O Post on 21 November, 2019 cites

Union Of India & Ors vs S.K.Kapoor on 16 March, 2011

3. Four main grounds have been advanced in the OA. First ground is non- supply of the UPSC advice prior to passing of the punishment order as required as per the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of UOI & others vs. S.K. Kapoor in Civil Appeal No. 5341/2006, UOI & others vs. R.P. Singh in Civil Appeal No. 6717/2008 and SN Narula vs. UOI, 2011 4 SCC 591. Second ground is that the charges are trivial in nature with no loss to government after applicant deposited suo motu the amount of loss as stated in the charge-sheet. The applicant cited the provisions in the "Disciplinary Proceeding-A Digest" and the following judgments in support of this ground taken by the applicant:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 532 - Full Document

Union Of India & Ors vs R.P.Singh on 22 May, 2014

3. Four main grounds have been advanced in the OA. First ground is non- supply of the UPSC advice prior to passing of the punishment order as required as per the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of UOI & others vs. S.K. Kapoor in Civil Appeal No. 5341/2006, UOI & others vs. R.P. Singh in Civil Appeal No. 6717/2008 and SN Narula vs. UOI, 2011 4 SCC 591. Second ground is that the charges are trivial in nature with no loss to government after applicant deposited suo motu the amount of loss as stated in the charge-sheet. The applicant cited the provisions in the "Disciplinary Proceeding-A Digest" and the following judgments in support of this ground taken by the applicant:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 90 - D Misra - Full Document

Dev Singh vs Punjab Tourism Development ... on 2 September, 2003

4. Third ground in the OA (para 5.12) is that the punishment imposed is "totally disproportionate to the misconduct proved". The applicant cites the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Devi Singh vs. Punjab Tourism Development Corporation, (2003) 8 SCC 9 in support of this ground. Fourth 3 ground taken in the OA (para 5.13) is the delay of about two and half years in forwarding the matter to UPSC by the respondent no.1 for which the applicant was harassed and he suffered.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 94 - Full Document

B.C. Chaturvedi vs Union Of India And Ors on 1 November, 1995

17. Applying ratio of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of B.C.Chaturvedi (supra), absence of strict proof on the basis of evidence cannot be advanced as a ground before Tribunal to challenge the disciplinary proceedings. In this case, the opinion/advice of the UPSC clearly shows seriousness of misconduct on the part of the applicant. It also shows that some evidence is available on record to justify the findings of the respondents on the charges framed against the applicant.
Supreme Court of India Cites 28 - Cited by 2256 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document
1