Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (0.42 seconds)Section 4 in Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 [Entire Act]
Section 60 in Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 [Entire Act]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Bank Of India And Ors vs K.P. Narayanan K.Utty on 16 January, 2003
State Bank of India & Ors. v. K.P. Narayanan Kutty [(2003)
2 SCC 449],
Ranjit Singh v. Union of India & Ors. [(2006) 4 SCC 153]
Going by the aforementioned decisions it can be seen that the
Hon'ble Apex Court from 1998 onwards consistently followed the
position that, while disagreeing with the findings of the enquiry
authority on any article of charge, the disciplinary authority must
record the reasons for such disagreement and record its own findings
on such charge if the evidence on record is sufficient for the purpose
and shall afford a full opportunity to prove his innocence.
Yoginath D. Bagde vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 16 September, 1999
Malhotra v. Punjab National Bank [2013 (3) KLT SN 40 Case
No.43 SC]
Lav Nigam v. Chairman and Managing Director, ITI Limited
and another [(2006) 9 SCC 440]
SBI and others v. Arvind K. Shukla [(2004) 13 SCC 797]
Yoginath D Bagde v. State of Maharashtra and another
[AIR 1999 SC 3734]
S.S. Rathore vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 September, 1989
54. This position is already considered in SS Rathore supra
wherein it is held that service appeal or revision should ordinarily be
disposed within a period of three to six months. Such findings entered
by the Hon'ble Apex Court are only with an intention to discipline the
system and keep the public servant away from a protracted period of
litigation. This is in order to prevent further prejudice to the incumbent
who has undergone a disciplinary proceeding.
G.Krishnan Nair vs State Of Kerala on 31 July, 2009
completely lost. Under such circumstances, no further enquiry is
possible. Even a fresh enquiry is not practical. All these contentions
are taken in the light of reported decisions in Krishnan Nair v. State
of Kerala [1998 (2) KLT Case No. 46 SN] and Anant R Kulkarni vs
Y.P. Education Society & Ors [(2013) 6 SCC 515], whereby
contended that even a fresh enquiry is not possible. Under such
circumstances, the Original Petition is to be allowed, the punishment
imposed on the petitioner is unfounded, irregular, disproportionate and
violative of principles of natural justice since the order itself is
perversive and not sustainable, and the petitioner is also entitled to
back-wages.
Anant R Kulkarni vs Y.P.Education Society & Ors on 26 April, 2013
completely lost. Under such circumstances, no further enquiry is
possible. Even a fresh enquiry is not practical. All these contentions
are taken in the light of reported decisions in Krishnan Nair v. State
of Kerala [1998 (2) KLT Case No. 46 SN] and Anant R Kulkarni vs
Y.P. Education Society & Ors [(2013) 6 SCC 515], whereby
contended that even a fresh enquiry is not possible. Under such
circumstances, the Original Petition is to be allowed, the punishment
imposed on the petitioner is unfounded, irregular, disproportionate and
violative of principles of natural justice since the order itself is
perversive and not sustainable, and the petitioner is also entitled to
back-wages.
Gurpreet Singh vs State Of Punjab on 9 November, 2005
In support of this contention, the petitioner has produced
Gurpreet Singh v. State of Punjab [2002 (1) KLT SN 98 (C.No.125)
SC] and State Bank of India and others v. Palak Modi and
another [(2013) 3 SCC 607].