cites: 157920519

Yoginath D. Bagde vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 16 September, 1999

In view of the above I find the action of the disciplinary 12 Patna High Court CWJC No.6895 of 2002 dt.26-07-2012 12 / 14 authority in issuing second show-cause notice for removal from service without giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing on the tentative opinion of the Disciplinary Authority against the finding of the Enquiry Officer in teeth of the principle of natural justice as well as the mandatory provision under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India as has been held by the Apex Court in case of Yoginath D. Bagde (Supra). The impugned order dated 23.06.2001 (Annexure-11) passed on the notice dated 24.07.1996 therefore, cannot be sustained and is, accordingly, set aside.

Supreme Court of India Cites 35 - Cited by 505 - S S Ahmad - Full Document

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

"Recently, a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Behari Misra relying upon the earlier decisions of this Court in State of Assam v. Bimal Kumar Pandit, Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. L.K. Ratna as also the Constitution Bench decision in Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar and the decision in Ram Kishan v. Union of India has held that: (SCC p. 96, para-17) "It will not stand to reason that when the finding in favour of the delinquent officers is proposed to be overturned by the disciplinary authority then no opportunity should be granted. The first stage of the enquiry is not completed till the disciplinary authority has recorded its findings. The principles of natural justice would demand that the authority which proposes to decide against the delinquent officer must give him a hearing. When the enquiring officer holds the charges to be proved, then that report has to be given to the delinquent officer who can make a representation before the disciplinary authority takes further action which may be prejudicial to the delinquent officer. When, like in the present case, the enquiry report is in favour of the delinquent officer but the disciplinary authority proposes to differ with such conclusions, then that authority which is deciding against the delinquent officer must give him an opportunity of being heard for otherwise he would be condemned unheard. In departmental proceedings, what is of ultimate importance is the finding of the disciplinary authority."

Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 929 - Full Document

State Of Assam & Another vs Bimal Kumar Pandit on 12 February, 1963

"Recently, a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Behari Misra relying upon the earlier decisions of this Court in State of Assam v. Bimal Kumar Pandit, Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. L.K. Ratna as also the Constitution Bench decision in Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar and the decision in Ram Kishan v. Union of India has held that: (SCC p. 96, para-17) "It will not stand to reason that when the finding in favour of the delinquent officers is proposed to be overturned by the disciplinary authority then no opportunity should be granted. The first stage of the enquiry is not completed till the disciplinary authority has recorded its findings. The principles of natural justice would demand that the authority which proposes to decide against the delinquent officer must give him a hearing. When the enquiring officer holds the charges to be proved, then that report has to be given to the delinquent officer who can make a representation before the disciplinary authority takes further action which may be prejudicial to the delinquent officer. When, like in the present case, the enquiry report is in favour of the delinquent officer but the disciplinary authority proposes to differ with such conclusions, then that authority which is deciding against the delinquent officer must give him an opportunity of being heard for otherwise he would be condemned unheard. In departmental proceedings, what is of ultimate importance is the finding of the disciplinary authority."

Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 142 - P B Gajendragadkar - Full Document

Institute Of Chartered Accountants vs L.K. Ratna & Others on 21 October, 1986

"Recently, a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Behari Misra relying upon the earlier decisions of this Court in State of Assam v. Bimal Kumar Pandit, Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. L.K. Ratna as also the Constitution Bench decision in Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar and the decision in Ram Kishan v. Union of India has held that: (SCC p. 96, para-17) "It will not stand to reason that when the finding in favour of the delinquent officers is proposed to be overturned by the disciplinary authority then no opportunity should be granted. The first stage of the enquiry is not completed till the disciplinary authority has recorded its findings. The principles of natural justice would demand that the authority which proposes to decide against the delinquent officer must give him a hearing. When the enquiring officer holds the charges to be proved, then that report has to be given to the delinquent officer who can make a representation before the disciplinary authority takes further action which may be prejudicial to the delinquent officer. When, like in the present case, the enquiry report is in favour of the delinquent officer but the disciplinary authority proposes to differ with such conclusions, then that authority which is deciding against the delinquent officer must give him an opportunity of being heard for otherwise he would be condemned unheard. In departmental proceedings, what is of ultimate importance is the finding of the disciplinary authority."

Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 414 - R S Pathak - Full Document

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

"Recently, a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Behari Misra relying upon the earlier decisions of this Court in State of Assam v. Bimal Kumar Pandit, Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. L.K. Ratna as also the Constitution Bench decision in Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar and the decision in Ram Kishan v. Union of India has held that: (SCC p. 96, para-17) "It will not stand to reason that when the finding in favour of the delinquent officers is proposed to be overturned by the disciplinary authority then no opportunity should be granted. The first stage of the enquiry is not completed till the disciplinary authority has recorded its findings. The principles of natural justice would demand that the authority which proposes to decide against the delinquent officer must give him a hearing. When the enquiring officer holds the charges to be proved, then that report has to be given to the delinquent officer who can make a representation before the disciplinary authority takes further action which may be prejudicial to the delinquent officer. When, like in the present case, the enquiry report is in favour of the delinquent officer but the disciplinary authority proposes to differ with such conclusions, then that authority which is deciding against the delinquent officer must give him an opportunity of being heard for otherwise he would be condemned unheard. In departmental proceedings, what is of ultimate importance is the finding of the disciplinary authority."

Supreme Court of India Cites 64 - Cited by 2043 - Full Document

Ram Kishan vs Union Of India & Ors on 1 September, 1995

"Recently, a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Behari Misra relying upon the earlier decisions of this Court in State of Assam v. Bimal Kumar Pandit, Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. L.K. Ratna as also the Constitution Bench decision in Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar and the decision in Ram Kishan v. Union of India has held that: (SCC p. 96, para-17) "It will not stand to reason that when the finding in favour of the delinquent officers is proposed to be overturned by the disciplinary authority then no opportunity should be granted. The first stage of the enquiry is not completed till the disciplinary authority has recorded its findings. The principles of natural justice would demand that the authority which proposes to decide against the delinquent officer must give him a hearing. When the enquiring officer holds the charges to be proved, then that report has to be given to the delinquent officer who can make a representation before the disciplinary authority takes further action which may be prejudicial to the delinquent officer. When, like in the present case, the enquiry report is in favour of the delinquent officer but the disciplinary authority proposes to differ with such conclusions, then that authority which is deciding against the delinquent officer must give him an opportunity of being heard for otherwise he would be condemned unheard. In departmental proceedings, what is of ultimate importance is the finding of the disciplinary authority."

Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 154 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Search Results Page

Refine Search