Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (1.89 seconds)The Right to Information Act, 2005
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Vijay Kumar vs Union Of India & Ors on 24 February, 1988
5.5 In Vijay Kumar Vs. Union of India and another (supra), the
disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the applicant on the charges
that the applicant was initially appointed as Packer (Group-D) as an S/T
community candidate with effect from 01.04.1981 and it came to the notice
of the Department that the caste certificate submitted by the applicant was
fake. He was, thus, alleged to have managed to get his appointment by
submitting a fake caste certificate. The IO submitted the enquiry report
holding the charge as proved against the applicant. The DA passed the order
of dismissal from service.
K. L. Shinde vs State Of Mysore on 26 March, 1976
Shivabasappa (supra) and in K.L.Shinde v. State of Mysore(supra).
R.S. Saini vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 9 September, 1999
23. After analysing the evidence adduced by the prosecution
and defence, the pleas raised and the documents produced by the
applicant during the enquiry, the IO in his report has found that all the
documents submitted by the applicant do not in any way suggest that
Page 47 of 53
48 OA 1276/13
the applicant is a Kharia, that Khariyas and Nonias are treated as
synonyms by the Government, and that Nonias are treated as a ST
community. The applicant has not been able to furnish any document
which contradicts the conclusions reached by the Chief Secretary,
Government of Bihar. The Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar,
vide his letter dated 17.1.2007 addressed to the Joint Secretary
(CNV), has communicated that the Caste Certificate submitted by the
applicant is not genuine, and that the District Welfare Branch, Chapra,
vide its letter No.280 dated 8.3.2006, signed by Additional Collector,
Chapra, confirmed that the said certificate (No.309 dated 5.6.1979)
had not been issued from that office. The applicant is not a Kharia and
belongs to the Nonia caste which falls in the category of extremely
backward. The applicant could not prove his claim that he belongs to
the ST community. He could not produce any document which could
prove that he is a Khariya or that Noniyas and Khariyas are synonyms
or that Noniyas are considered as ST community. Accordingly, the IO
has held both the charges as proved against the applicant. It has been
held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.S.Saini v. State of Punjab
and others (supra) that if there is some evidence to reasonably
support the conclusion of the IO, it is not the function of the Court to
review the evidence and to arrive at its own independent finding. The
IO is the sole judge of the fact so long as there is some legal evidence
to substantiate the findings and the adequacy or reliability of the
Page 48 of 53
49 OA 1276/13
evidence is not a matter which can be permitted to be canvassed
before the Court.
Vijay Kumar Mallik vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 12 August, 1998
(b) That he belongs to the Khariya community clan of the Nonia
Community which is recognized as a Schedule Tribe in
Bihar. That Khariya is known in Bihar by many synonyms-
Nonia being one of them. Shri Mahto cites a Welfare
Department Letter no. 373 dated 31.12.1984 as one of the
basis for his contention. He also cites the report of the
Mungerilal Backward Classes Commission Rep[ort
published in 1976 to further substantiate his claim. Shri
Mahto has also cited the Annual Report of 2004-05 of
Government of India - showing Khariya as a ST community
in Bihar. He has also mentioned the Census of 1961 for the
District of Saran to further his claim. Shri Mahto has further
cited a 1983 judgement of Delhi Sessions Court (Vijay
Kumar vs CBI). As per Mr. Mahto's contention, the
judgment of the Court accepts that Noniyas and Khariyas are
the same (Shri Mahto has not managed to provide and
authenticated copy of the judgment, which he claims has
been weeded out).
Subedar Major S.N. Thakur vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 20 November, 1998
5.1 In S.Sundar Raju Vs. Union of India and others (supra), the
reference was made to the Full Bench of the Tribunal on the following three
questions:
Roop Singh Negi vs Punjab National Bank & Ors on 19 December, 2008
5.2 In Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank and others
(supra), the appellant was a Peon in respondent Bank. He along with others
was involved in a case of theft of Bank draft book. An FIR was lodged for
the alleged loss and after investigation by the police, the appellant and others
were prosecuted. The appellant was, however, acquitted by criminal court.
Cbi vs Suresh Nanda on 5 February, 2007
Mr.H.P.Chakravorty also
Page 5 of 53
6 OA 1276/13
relied on and produced before us a copy of the judgment dated 30.3.2017
passed by the learned CMM, Tis Hazari, Delhi, in RC No.4(S)/2006, PS
CBI/SCR-III/ND, u/ss.420 & 471 IPC (CBI Vs. Suresh Prasad). The
accusation against the accused-Suresh Prasad was that he had knowingly
submitted a forged ST community (Kharia) certificate in his name and, on
the basis thereof, had succeeded in procuring the job of LDC in CBI against
the reserved ST category. After analysing the oral and documentary
evidence adduced by the prosecution and defence, the learned Magistrate
acquitted the accused of the charges. Relying on the said judgment,
Mr.H.P.Chakravorty submitted that the applicant in the present case is
similarly placed as accused-Suresh Prasad and, therefore, the charges against
the applicant are baseless and the impugned disciplinary proceedings and the
orders passed by the DA, AA and RA are unsustainable and liable to be
quashed.