Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.23 seconds)
M.Sundar Singh vs Canara Bank on 27 August, 2009 cites

State Bank Of Bikaner & Jaipur & Ors vs Shri Prabhu Dayal Grover on 19 September, 1995

In the decision reported in (1995) 6 SCC 279 (State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur v. Prabhu Dayal Grover), similar regulation viz., Regulation 68(3) of the State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipure Officers' Service Regulations, 1979, was considered by the Honourable Supreme Court and in paragraph 13 it is held thus, "13. .......... whether under the Regulations, the authorities concerned are required to give reasons for their decisions. Regulation 68(3) lays down the procedure the disciplinary authority is required to follow after it receives the proceedings of the enquiry including the report of the Inquiry Officer. On careful perusal thereof we find that only in those cases where the disciplinary authority considers it necessary to direct fresh or further enquiry or disagrees with the findings of the Inquiry Officer, it has to record the reasons for its such directions, but there is no such obligation if it agrees with the findings of the Inquiry Officer. It can, therefore, be legitimately inferred that when express provisions have been made in the Regulations for recording reasons in only the first two of the three fact situations  and not the other  there is no implied obligation also to record the reasons in case of concurrence with the findings of the Inquiry Officer. Even if we proceed on the basis that such an obligation is implicit, still the order of the disciplinary authority cannot be held to be bad as, on perusal thereof, we find that before concurring with the findings of the Inquiry Officer it has gone through the entire proceeding and applied its mind thereto. In our considered opinion, when the disciplinary authority agrees with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and accepts the reasons given by him in support of such findings, it is not necessary for the punishing authority to reappraise the evidence to arrive at the same findings. We are, therefore, unable to accept the contention of Mr Dutta that the order of punishment was liable to be struck down as it was a non-speaking order and did not contain any reason."
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 121 - M K Mukherjee - Full Document

Union Of India & Anr vs K.G. Soni on 17 August, 2006

15. The scope of judicial review with regard to the interference in the disciplinary matters is very limited as held by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in (2006) 6 SCC 794 (Union of India v. K.G.Soni) and in paragraphs 14 and 15 it is held thus, "14. .......... the court should not interfere with the administrators decision unless it was illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or was shocking to the conscience of the court, in the sense that it was in defiance of logic or moral standards. In view of what has been stated in Wednesbury case the court would not go into the correctness of the choice made by the administrator open to him and the court should not substitute its decision to that of the administrator. The scope of judicial review is limited to the deficiency in the decision-making process and not the decision.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 112 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Municipal Committee, Bahadurgarh vs Krishnan Behari And Ors on 19 February, 1996

(a) In J.T. (1996) 3 SC 96 (Municipal Committee, Bahadurgarh v. Krishnan Behari and Others), the Honourable Supreme Court held that in cases of misappropriation, there cannot be any other punishment other than dismissal. It is further held that any sympathy shown in such cases is totally uncalled for and opposed to public interest and that the amount misappropriated may be small or large, but it is the act of misappropriation that is relevant.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 200 - B P Reddy - Full Document

Ramesh Chandra Sharma vs Punjab National Bank & Anr on 18 May, 2007

(d) In the decision reported in 2007 AIR SCW 4136 = JT 2007 (8) SC 588 (Ramesh Chandra Sharma v. Punjab National Bank & Another), in paragraph 20, the Supreme Court held thus, "The High Court itself has noticed a large number of decisions and formed the opinion that the charges levelled against the delinquent officer were of grave nature. A major punishment may be inflicted even where no pecuniary loss was caused to the Bank by reason of the act of the delinquent officer. In support of the aforementioned proposition of law, the High Court opined:
Supreme Court of India Cites 27 - Cited by 86 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Air India Corporation, Bombay vs V. A. Rebellow & Anr on 24 February, 1972

Once the employer has lost the confidence in the employee and the bona fide loss of confidence is affirmed, the order of punishment must be considered to be immune from challenge, for the reason that discharging the office of trust and confidence requires absolute integrity. A necessary implication which must be engrafted on the contract of service is that the servant must undertake to serve his master with good faith and fidelity. In a case of loss of confidence, reinstatement cannot be directed. Granting such an employee the relief of reinstatement would be "an act of misplaced sympathy which can find no foundation in law or in equity." (Vide Air India Corporation, Bombay vs. V.A.Ravellow, AIR 1972 SC 1343; The Binny Ltd. vs. Their Workmen, AIR 1973 SC 1403; Kamal Kishore Lakshman vs. Management of M/s.Pan American World Airways Inc & Ors., AIR 1987 SC 229; Francis Kalein & Co. Pvt. Ltd., vs. Their Workmen, AIR 1971 SC 2414; Regional Manager, Rajasthan SRTC Vs. Sohan Lal, (2004) 8 SCC 218; and Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs. M.Chandrashekhar Reddy & Ors., 2005 AIR SCW 1232).
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 134 - I D Dua - Full Document

Binny Ltd vs Their Workmen on 15 February, 1972

Once the employer has lost the confidence in the employee and the bona fide loss of confidence is affirmed, the order of punishment must be considered to be immune from challenge, for the reason that discharging the office of trust and confidence requires absolute integrity. A necessary implication which must be engrafted on the contract of service is that the servant must undertake to serve his master with good faith and fidelity. In a case of loss of confidence, reinstatement cannot be directed. Granting such an employee the relief of reinstatement would be "an act of misplaced sympathy which can find no foundation in law or in equity." (Vide Air India Corporation, Bombay vs. V.A.Ravellow, AIR 1972 SC 1343; The Binny Ltd. vs. Their Workmen, AIR 1973 SC 1403; Kamal Kishore Lakshman vs. Management of M/s.Pan American World Airways Inc & Ors., AIR 1987 SC 229; Francis Kalein & Co. Pvt. Ltd., vs. Their Workmen, AIR 1971 SC 2414; Regional Manager, Rajasthan SRTC Vs. Sohan Lal, (2004) 8 SCC 218; and Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs. M.Chandrashekhar Reddy & Ors., 2005 AIR SCW 1232).
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 60 - C A Vaidyialingam - Full Document

Kamal Kishore Lakshman vs Management Of Pan American World ... on 3 December, 1986

Once the employer has lost the confidence in the employee and the bona fide loss of confidence is affirmed, the order of punishment must be considered to be immune from challenge, for the reason that discharging the office of trust and confidence requires absolute integrity. A necessary implication which must be engrafted on the contract of service is that the servant must undertake to serve his master with good faith and fidelity. In a case of loss of confidence, reinstatement cannot be directed. Granting such an employee the relief of reinstatement would be "an act of misplaced sympathy which can find no foundation in law or in equity." (Vide Air India Corporation, Bombay vs. V.A.Ravellow, AIR 1972 SC 1343; The Binny Ltd. vs. Their Workmen, AIR 1973 SC 1403; Kamal Kishore Lakshman vs. Management of M/s.Pan American World Airways Inc & Ors., AIR 1987 SC 229; Francis Kalein & Co. Pvt. Ltd., vs. Their Workmen, AIR 1971 SC 2414; Regional Manager, Rajasthan SRTC Vs. Sohan Lal, (2004) 8 SCC 218; and Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs. M.Chandrashekhar Reddy & Ors., 2005 AIR SCW 1232).
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 115 - R B Misra - Full Document
1   2 Next