Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.37 seconds)
Smt Alise Marry vs M/O Defence on 17 April, 2025 cites

Moni Shankar vs Union Of India And Another on 4 March, 2008

3. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the sole charge against the applicant that she had kept brass blank material having 4.02 kg (190 mm diameter and 17 mm thick) inside her blouse. Both the Inquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority failed to conclude that how a lady can keep such heavy material inside her blouse. Further, the revengeful action of lady searcher Smt. Madhu is also apparent as the applicant had denied to campaign in her favour during election. She further argued that the examination-in-chief of the applicant was conducted by the Inquiry Officer himself, whereas it ought to have been done by the Presenting Officer. She Page 3 of 10 4 OA No.984/2012 places reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Moni Shankar vs. Union of India and another, (2008) 3 SCC 484.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 324 - S B Sinha - Full Document

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

3.1 Learned counsel for the applicant further placed reliance on two judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of B.C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India and others, (1995) 6 SCC 749 and Ministry of Finance and another vs. S.B. Ramesh, (1998) 3 SCC 227 to say that the order of the Disciplinary Authority was based on no evidence and the findings were perverse.
Supreme Court of India Cites 28 - Cited by 2256 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Ministry Of Finance & Anr vs S.B. Ramesh on 2 February, 1998

3.1 Learned counsel for the applicant further placed reliance on two judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of B.C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India and others, (1995) 6 SCC 749 and Ministry of Finance and another vs. S.B. Ramesh, (1998) 3 SCC 227 to say that the order of the Disciplinary Authority was based on no evidence and the findings were perverse.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 206 - K Venkataswami - Full Document

State Of Haryana And Anr. vs Rattan Singh on 22 March, 1977

"12. It is trite law that ordinarily the findings recorded by the Inquiry officer should not be interfered by the appellate authority or by the writ court. However when the finding of guilt recorded by the Inquiry Officer is based on perverse finding the same can always be interfered as held in Union of India vs. P. Gunasekaran, State of Haryana vs. Rattan Singh and Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board vs. T.T. Murali Babu.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 650 - V R Iyer - Full Document

Chennai Metropolitan Water ... vs T.T. Murali Babu on 10 February, 2014

"12. It is trite law that ordinarily the findings recorded by the Inquiry officer should not be interfered by the appellate authority or by the writ court. However when the finding of guilt recorded by the Inquiry Officer is based on perverse finding the same can always be interfered as held in Union of India vs. P. Gunasekaran, State of Haryana vs. Rattan Singh and Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board vs. T.T. Murali Babu.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 703 - D Misra - Full Document
1