Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.25 seconds)
Sudhiranjan Senapati vs Income Tax Department on 7 January, 2025 cites

Antitrust - Section 26(2) Disclaimer: ... vs The Department Of Sale Tax/ ... on 29 September, 2015

But the Nen"ble Apex Court in the case of UOL & Ors vs K.A.Dhawan, 1993 ©) SCC 58 held that Hf quasi judicial authorily acts in reckless and negligent manner conferring undue benefit on others and his actions have been actuated by m ale fide + intention such authority is Heble to be procesded against. Thenstore, imation of disciplinary proceeding against the applicant cannot be fautted awhth. Yhe all egation of applicant that the Respondents exercise of power for initation of departmental proceedings in a pick and choose manner has been denied by the Respondems by tating that the apnlicant was the Supervisory officer and therefbre. disciplinary prace coding was fnifiated against him. Ie so fir as Criminal Case is concerned, & has been stated thar criminal case and disciplinary Procecdings sre two separate and parallel procesdin Ags and therefore, letting off from criminal case does not mean the authority concerned is precluded from procesding in departmental proceedings. In this regard. they have placed reliance an the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the ease af State of Rajasthan vs g Suri E.R. Meena & Others, AIR 1907 SC 15. Ip is seed that the applicant afl through questioned the maintainability and sustiinability of the charge sheet and he never questioned the merit of the mater. He did coaperate with the Inquiry proceeding wherein he could have defended the charge levelled avainst him and could heve got the charge unproved during the course of Inguiry proceedings. The enguiry was concluded ex parte wherein the charge was held proved. In stating the above, the Respondents have prayed that this OA being devoid of any merit is Usable to be dismissed.
Competition Commission of India Cites 6 - Cited by 88 - Full Document

P.Pramila & Ors vs State Of Karnataka & Anr on 9 April, 2015

Commissioner af Police, New Delhi v Mehar Singh (2013) 7 SCC &§ and the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karneteka at Bengaluru in P.VJRudrappa v Slate of Karnataka & Another in Wit Petition No. 9642/2020 decided on 30.01.2024, quashed the departmental proceedings vide order dated Brigit ee emer eet ht 10 23.8 No Seanngaoaee therefore, according to learned Counsel fbr the Applicant, the present case being one and the same, the charge sheet is Hable to be quashed, 4a) Secondly, (cared counsel for the Applicant drew our allention to the imputation in the Memorandum dated 04.08.2014 to state that the mentions made in the imputation, have absolute Hy HO relevance ar even any nexus to the allegation mentioned in the Article of charge sheet. Thus, seceding to him, the a ERHOn mate im the charge sheet is established that the same are --
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 8 - J S Khehar - Full Document

Sawai Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 2 May, 1986

is vague and unspecific fudicial interference is not precluded, learned counsel for the Applicant has placed reliance on the a UA No SOOBUGGNINSS decisions of the Hon "ble Apex Court in the cases of Sawai Singh vs State OF Rajasthan, (986 AIR 895 & Anil Gulurker ve Bilaspur Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank and anether, 2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 9S. Accardingly, he has prayed that on this scere also the charge sheet is Kable to be quashed 4ib). Thirdly, to fusuiy that issuance of charge sheet was under miluence of outside agency and thus, the charge sheet is not sustainable ad is linble tg Se quashed, leamed counsel for the agmlicant drew cur attention te the note sheet obtained under RTI Ast, 2008, wherein, the file was placed before the Disciplinary Authority for approval with nothing that "s. Phe CAY had conducted search on JE 2005 in respect of Sani dlok Nash and Shei CEO RORY ete Se ype oe ae ey nds RS Serene ee te = cf Eu $ os iw SA Sena? and mace fether lavesdiguiion in ty core. Per drvestigation, the CRY reconenemied Reeulur Departmental action for Major Penalty in bath ihe eases. The CBI also furwarded Dray Aniele of CRarees framed avainet the aficers along with stulement Qf unputation ay avsconedn ct in support af fhe aniiele af charges... Menece, secenting t& Learned Counsel for the applicant the initiation af disciplinary proceedings was not an independent application of mind or frees front influenced, person or body f act in its plac bem Pa CUA Ns BEG BRAES OG RR oy dic) Asoording to him, CBE is an antside © sgency of the Revenne Department of Government of India and, thus, he ought not to have prepared the draft charge and sent the same for approval. By placing reliance an the decision of the Non'his Apex Court in the case of Sahni Silk Mills (P) Lid. 11994) 5 SCC 346. itis. stated that by now His almast settled that the legislatare can permil any statutory authority to delegate its pawer to any other authority, of course, after ated in the statute uself whhin the the polloy has been indi framework of which such delegatee is to exercise the power. The real problem or the controversy arises when there is a sub-
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 198 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Nagaraj Shivarao Karjagi vs Syndicate Bank Head Office Manipal And ... on 30 April, 1991

1S | GLA Ne SOO 00 4{e) He has also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nagraj Shiv Rao Karjagi v. Syndicate Bank, Head Office Manipal and Another, ATR 199] ©) SC 394 to substantiate that surrender of discretion vested on stgtate at the Wetation of CBI and CVC by instituting DP and charge sheet prepared and furnished by CBI is not sustainable. a(). ip is contended that the concerned authorities of the department have to exercise their own quasi-judicial diseretion alone, having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. They cannot act under the dictation of the Central Vigilance Commission, or of the Central Government. No other party like the Central Viedance Comission. or the Central Goverment, cao dictate to the Disciplinary Authority, or the Appellate Authority, as te how they should exercise their power. Since in the present case, ihe entire gantul of exercise was started at the behest of CBI, the charge ahect is Hable to he quashed, ledihed eounse! for ihe applicant has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apes Court in the case of Nirmala J. dhala ve State of Gajaret & Anr, m Civil Appeal No. 2668 of 2005, die) By drawing our attention te the note sheet, learned counse!
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 153 - K J Shetty - Full Document

Commissioner Of Police And Anr vs Mehar Singh on 2 July, 2013

"a? We are additionally satisfied that in the teeth af the finding of the appellate Judge, the discipli proceedings and the orders passed thereon cannot allowed to stand. The charges were not Just similar ut identical and the evidence. witnesses circumstances were all the same. This is a case where in exercise of our discretion, we quash the orders of the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority as allowing them ic @ stand ot eee un] fust, ee and . c. The 24 DLA No Seniadagana il. Han accused is dischs read at pre trial s ee or the erinting! proceeding launched against him js quashed, ther is ac difficulty in treating the same as the case of 'honouruble acquittal' for the lindted Purpose Gf disciplinary Inquiry is the law of the land as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court n the case of Commissioner of Police, New Delhi v Mehar Singh (2013) 7 SCC 68 and fol lowed by the Hon'ble Hieh Court of Ramemka and Bengaluru ta PV Rudmappra {supra}. Relevant portion of the deeision js quoted below: "the expressions "honourable acquittal', "sequitted of blame" and "filly exonerated" are unknown fo the Criminal Procedure Code or the Penal Code. 'They are coined by judicial pronouncements, Ht is diffleult to define what is meant by the expression "honourably ac. quitted™, . When ihe accused is acquitted after full consideration af the prosecution case and the prosecution miserably y Tals ta prove the charges leveled againat the accused, Ho can possibly be said that the accused was honourably acquitted."
Supreme Court of India Cites 31 - Cited by 370 - Full Document

C.I.T,Faizabad vs Rani Girjadevi Balika Inter Col. on 20 January, 2017

ts. We have examined the case of Shri Yogerdra Mittal, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (supra), against whom Criminal Case was also registered by the CBI wherein he was discharged and. therefore, he a approached befbre the CAT, PB. New Delhi for quashing the departmental proc eedings Initiated against him out of same allegation, The CAT, PB, New Delhi by app!
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1