Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 95 (0.42 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Ram Phal Kundu vs Kamal Sharma on 23 January, 2004
In the ratio emanating from the case of Ram Phal Kundu vs. Kamal Sharma (supra), while the applicant had laid emphasis on both para 12 & 13 of the said judgment, the counsel for respondents No.2 had laid emphasis specially on para 13 of the said judgment, as reproduced above. We are of the view that this judgment also does not enure any benefit to the applicant, and since the Rules 8 (15), 8 (16) and 8 (24) specifically prescribe the method of conducting the disciplinary enquiry, including the format of the enquiry report, they cannot at all be taken lightly and overlooked. Therefore, we agree with the submissions of learned counsel for respondent No.2 that the Report dated 30.8.2012, submitted by the previous Inquiry Officer, did not meet the requirements of the rules.
State Of U.P vs Harendra Arora & Anr on 2 May, 2001
112. He very helpfully cited copies of these Judgments also on 31.10.2013 along with his submissions. We have gone through the above cited judgments. The judgment in State of U.P. v. Harendra Arora and Anr. (supra) which was delivered in the context of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 and Rule 55A as amended in the State of U.P. Para 13 of the Judgment discusses about the infractions from statutory provision, rules and regulations and goes on to say that in respect of procedural provisions other than that of a fundamental nature the theory of substantial compliance would be available and in such cases objections on this score have to be judged on the touch stone of prejudice. The Apex Court had observed that the test would be whether the delinquent officer had got a fair inquiry or not.
State Bank Of Patiala & Ors vs S.K.Sharma on 27 March, 1996
In the case of State Bank of Patiala v. S. K. Sharma (1996) 3 SCC 364 : (1996 AIR SCW 1740 : AIR 1996 SC 1669), there was a departmental proceeding against an officer in which the punishment awarded was challenged on the ground that there was violation of regulation 68(b)(iii) of the Bank Regulations which had statutory force under which copies of statement of witnesses recorded earlier were required to be furnished to a delinquent not later than three days before the commencement of examination of witnesses by the Inquiry Officer, but no such copy was at all supplied and a stand was taken that opportunity was afforded to the delinquent to peruse the same and take notes therefrom though only half an hour before the commencement of the enquiry proceedings. In these circumstances, it was held that there was substantial compliance of the regulation as such, the punishment awarded cannot be vitiated on account of infractions of the aforesaid regulation in view of the fact that the delinquent, expressly or by his conduct, would be deemed to have waived the procedural provision which was of a mandatory character which was conceived in his interest and not public interest and was not prejudiced thereby, following the decision of this Court in the case of ECIL (1994 AIR SCW 1050 : AIR 1994 SC 1074 : 1994 Lab IC 762).
K. L. Tripathi vs State Bank Of India And Others on 4 October, 1983
124. The learned counsel for the applicant had relied upon the judgment of K.L.Tripathi vs. State Bank of India (supra) to submit that when the applicant has never denied having filed the Writ Petition before the Honble Apex Court, by joining along with many others, in the absence of any lis as to facts, there is no necessity to offer him any opportunity to examine or cross examine witnesses. However, from para 33 of the said judgment, as already reproduced by us above, we find that the Honble Apex Court had laid emphasis upon the veracity of the evidence being brought on record, and the testimonies not to be gathered behind the back of any one party, and in this instant case, neither has any evidence been brought on record, nor any testimony been gathered by the previous Inquiry Officer, and, therefore, the applicant cannot be allowed to derive any benefit out of the ratio of this judgment.
Union Of India Etc. Etc vs K.V. Jankiraman Etc. Etc on 27 August, 1991
71. The 5th proposition put forward by the counsel for respondents was that in the absence of any provision in the Service Rules, the general law as laid down by the Honble Apex Court in Union of India vs. K.V.Jankiraman (supra) covers the field. He submitted that in the instant case, there is a specific statutory restraint, contained in the statutory guidelines dated 28.3.2000 (Annexure No. CA-4/Pg.29 at 37 & 40), wherein it has been laid down that the sealed cover/covers shall be opened only on conclusion of the case of criminal prosecution or disciplinary enquiry, and cannot be opened during the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings against an IAS officer. He, therefore, submitted that even the directions of the Honble Allahabad High Court in their judgment dated 20.7.2012, as already reproduced by us (supra) cannot be overlooked and ignored by this Tribunal.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 164 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Luxmi Kant Shukla S/O Late Indra Prasad ... vs State Of U.P. Thru Principal Secy. ... on 16 September, 2010
3. Pursuant to the notice respondents appeared and resisted the claim of the applicant by filing detailed Counter Affidavit. When the case came up for preliminary hearing the applicant pressed for interim relief to direct the respondents to consider his case for empanelment as Secretary to Government of India in the meeting , which was scheduled to be held in May 2012. After considering the arguments of learned counsel for the respective parties this Tribunal by its order dated 25.05.2012 did not stay the charge sheet but as an interim measure direction was given to the Government of India to consider the case of the applicant for empanelment to the post of Secretary by not taking cognizance of the charge sheet. The order was passed on the preliminary arguments of the applicant that since the competent authority i.e. Minister In-charge in the present case i.e. the then Chief Minister had not signed the note for issuance of charge sheet, therefore, the action of the respondents is in utter violation of judgment of jurisdictional High Court, Lucknow Bench in the case of Luxmi Kant Shukla Vs. State of U.P & Ors reported as 2010 (8) ADJ 356 (DB) (LB). Order passed on 25.05.2012 reads as under:-