Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.25 seconds)
State Bank Of India vs N.Palanisamy on 2 February, 2022 cites

The Disciplinary ... vs Nikunja Bihari Patnaik on 15 April, 1996

In Disciplinary Authority-cum-Regional Manager and Others vs. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik reported in (1996) 9 SCC 69, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that when bank officer dismissed for acting beyond his authority in allowing advances and overdrawals, several of which became sticky and irrecoverable, the request of the delinquent to reduce the punishment cannot be accepted and the same was rejected. The relevant paragraph in the said judgment is extracted hereunder:
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 296 - B P Reddy - Full Document

Sawai Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 2 May, 1986

In Sawai Singh v. State of Rajasthan [(1986) 3 SCC 454 : 1986 SCC (L&S) 662 : AIR 1986 SC 995] this Court held that even in a domestic enquiry, the charge must be clear, definite and specific as it would be difficult for any delinquent to meet the vague charges. Evidence adduced should not be perfunctory even if the delinquent does not take the defence or make a protest against that the charges are vague, that does not save the enquiry from being vitiated for the reason that there must be fair play in action, particularly, in respect of an order involving adverse or penal consequences.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 198 - S Mukharji - Full Document

The State Of Assam And Another vs Mahendra Kumar Das And Others on 18 March, 1970

(SCC p. 724, para 26) “26. In our opinion the learned Single Judge and consequently the Division Bench of the High Court did not pose unto themselves the correct question. The matter can be viewed from two angles. Despite limited jurisdiction a civil court, it was entitled to interfere in a case where the report of the enquiry officer is based on no evidence. In a suit filed by a delinquent employee in a civil court as also a writ court, in the event the findings arrived at in the departmental proceedings are questioned before it, it should keep in mind the following: (1) the enquiry officer is not permitted to collect any material from outside sources during the conduct of the enquiry. (See State of Assam v. Mahendra Kumar Das [(1970) 1 SCC 709] .) (2) In ____________ Page No.13/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.22 of 2020 and C.M.P. No.287 of 2020 a domestic enquiry fairness in the procedure is a part of the principles of natural justice.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 116 - C A Vaidyialingam - Full Document

M.V. Bijlani vs Union Of India & Ors on 5 April, 2006

21. Yet again in M.V. Bijlani v. Union of India [(2006) 5 SCC 88 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 919] this Court held: (SCC p. 95, para 25) “25. … Although the charges in a departmental proceeding are not required to be proved like a criminal trial i.e. beyond all reasonable doubt, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the enquiry officer performs a quasi-judicial function, who upon analysing the documents must arrive at a conclusion that there had been a preponderance of probability to prove the charges on the basis of materials on record. While doing so, he cannot take into consideration any irrelevant fact. He cannot refuse to consider the relevant facts. He cannot shift the burden of proof. He cannot reject the relevant testimony of the witnesses only on the basis of surmises and conjectures. He cannot enquire into the allegations with which the delinquent officer had not been charged with.”
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 837 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1   2 Next