Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.20 seconds)
N Parida vs National Aluminium Company Limited, ... on 26 April, 2023 cites

Managing Director Ecil Hyderabad Etc. ... vs B. Karunakar Etc. Etc on 1 October, 1993

whick does not meet the requirement of law/principle of natural aw Sarees ot nih hts MANa. 26 bee Aen justice, Whether the report of the Inquiry Officer/authority, who is appainted by the disciplinary au thority fo hold an Inquiry Into the charges against the delinquent employee, is required to be furnished to the emyNoyee fo © syable him fo make proper representation fo the Disciplinary Authority before suc h authority arrives at its own Hnding with rer ard to the guilt or otherwise of Ue employee and the ne in several cases before x re punishment, [any to be awarded to him the Hon'ble Apex Court and the leading decision on the subject is in the ease of Managing Director, ECHL, Hyderabad and Ors. v. B. Karunakar and Ors{(1993) 4 SCC 727) wherein the Hon 'ble Apex Court after taking note of several decisions held that where the Inquiry cheer is other than the disciplinary authority, the disciplinary proceedings break Into Pw shiges. The first stage ends when the disciplinary authority arrives at Its canclusions on the basis of the evidence, Inquiry Officer's repart and the delinguent employee's reply to i The second stage begins when the Disciplinary Authority decides to impose penalty on the basis af its conclusians. If the Disciplinary Authority decides te drop the disciplinary proceedings, the second stage is not event reached, The employee's right to recelve the report ip wt QA Ne, Se OOS68 of SUF thus, a part of the reasonable opportunity of defending himself In the first stage of the inquiry. If this right is denied to him, he is in effect denied the right to defend himself and ta prove his innocence In the disciplinary procecdings.
Supreme Court of India Cites 64 - Cited by 2043 - Full Document

Roop Singh Negi vs Punjab National Bank & Ors on 19 December, 2008

8. At this st bees ge, we aye rernindsd by the decision of the Hon'ble x Court in the case af Reap Singh Negi Vs Punjab National Bank P2009) 2 SCC S70 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that the Diseiplinar -y Authority as also Appellate Autharity to indicate reasons in support of its order when the delinquent is imposed with ounishment having civil consequence.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 1059 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Narinder Mohan Arya vs United India Insurance Co.Ltd. & Ors on 5 April, 2006

Further, in the case af Narinder e Mohan Arva Vs United India Insurance Co.Ltd. &... in Appeal CCV) F645 of 2O04 dated 5 April, 2006, the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to hold that the Appellate Authority, when the rules require application ef mind on several factors and serious contentions have been raised, was hound to assign reasans so ay to enable the writ court Wi ascertain as to whether he had applied his mind to the relevant factors which the statute requires him to de. The expression 'consider' is of some significance. In the contest af the rules, the Appellate Ay whority was required fo see as to whether () the procedure laid down in the rules was complied with: (9) the Enquiry Officer was justified in arriving at et 8 : QANg, 3 SG9 of BES the Hadi felinquent officer was guilty of the osconduct sine a ABAINSE hams and Cy) whether penalty impased by the Tiscin li nary AU AOrity was exe easive, More evidently, it is because It is far two well setded thatan authorin y In making aii order in encrelse of ike quasi-fucicial Ametion, must renord reasons ig support of the arder NS dicial arder must be supported by reasons. The rue requiring reasons in support af a quasifudical order is the basic as following the principles of natura' justice. And the rule oust he obs pved IO HLS proaporanirit, A mere pretence of compliance would donot satishy the requirement of law since, for the interest af justice 2, ID was ent upan the Disc Winary Authority to send a shaw Gaise nation to The applicant, along with | the e-copy af th @ inquiry report, tO give him ee appertunity to fle ary abhi yectlon/reply to the Inquiry report before the Disciplinary Authority. The same hag nat been dane, PaUsiNE manifest injustice and, thereby the decision makin ag proces aS has been completed villoted, g, in the sbows dreumstanc es, Ns Trilanal is net gai ing | UO Ere mart of the order passed by the Disciplinary Appell late Auth arity ag jb is absolutely necessary te remand hack the matter to the Dis sciplnary Odin 260A Authority sa that he shal) send a show cause notice to the apnlicant, enabling the applicant to make his stand clear before the Disciplinary Authority with regard {to finding. given by the inquiry. officer.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 369 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1