Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.28 seconds)
Bhabani Charan Biswal vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opposite ... on 2 January, 2024 cites

State Of Rajasthan vs M.C. Saxena on 24 February, 1998

In the case of State of Rajasthan v. M.C. Saxena reported in A.I.R. 1998 S.C.1150, the Apex Court has laid down that if the Disciplinary Authority gives reasons for Page 14 of 20 // 15 // disagreeing with the findings of the Inquiring Officer then the Court cannot interfere with those findings unless it comes to the conclusion that no reasonable man can come to the said finding.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 57 - S S Ahmad - Full Document

Punjab National Bank And Ors.The Chief ... vs Sh. Kunj Behari Misra, Sh. Shanti Prasad ... on 19 August, 1998

"2.. Mr. Sundravardan, the learned senior counsel appearing for the State Bank of India contended before us that in the case in hand, in fact, there has been no disagreement with the findings of the enquiring officer by the disciplinary authority, and on the other hand, the disciplinary authority on the accepted findings of the enquiring officer has recorded his conclusion differently on the basis of the relevant provisions of the rules, and therefore the question of giving an opportunity to the delinquent at that stage does not arise. To appreciate this contention, we have been taken through the findings of the enquiring officer and charges 1 (a) and 1(d) as well as the reasonings and ultimate conclusion of the disciplinary authority on those two charges. On examining the same, we are not persuaded to accept the submission of the learned counsel and in our view, the disciplinary authority has disagreed with the conclusion and findings arrived at by the enquiring officer. The next question therefore is, as has been formulated earlier, whether the disciplinary authority was required to record its tentative reasons for disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it recorded its ultimate findings. This question is concluded by a 3-Judge Bench decision of this Court in the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Behari Misra, .
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 929 - Full Document

K. R. Deb vs Collector Of Central Excise, Shillong on 7 April, 1971

The issue is not really whether the Enquiring Authority should be a single member or a multi member body, but whether a second inquiry such as the one under challenge is permissible. A Constitution Bench of this Court in K.R. Deb v. The Collector of Central Excise, Shillong, (1971) 2 SCC 102, examined the question in the context of Rule 15(1) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957. It was a case where an enquiry was ordered against a sub-Inspector, Central Excise (the appellant before this Court). The inquiry officer held that the charge was not proved. Thereafter the disciplinary authority appointed another inquiry officer "to conduct a supplementary open inquiry". Such supplementary inquiry was conducted and a report that there was "no conclusive proof" to "establish the charge" was made. Not satisfied, the disciplinary authority thought it fit that "another inquiry officer should be appointed to inquire afresh into the charge".
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 243 - S M Sikri - Full Document
1