Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.23 seconds)
Pratap Singh vs Northern Railway on 15 September, 2011 cites

G.M. Tank vs State Of Gujarat & Anr on 10 April, 2006

16. Counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in G.M. Tank v. State of Gujarat & Anr., AIR 2006 SC 2129, for the proposition that if the departmental enquiry and the criminal proceedings are based on identical and similar set of facts and evidence, same witnesses are examined in criminal case and the criminal court "honourably" acquitted the employee; finding to the contrary recorded during the departmental enquiry would be unfair and oppressive and any dismissal order issued under such circumstances could not have been sustained.
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 352 - A R Lakshmanan - Full Document

State Of Mysore vs K. Manche Gowda on 22 August, 1963

However, the case of The State of Mysore(supra) can be distinguished from the instant case because here, there was no recommendation with regard to the punishment that ought to be imposed on the petitioner. The report was confined only to the charges that had been framed. It was only thereafter that the competent authority, whilst making up its mind with regard to the punishment to be awarded, has taken into account the past record of the petitioner.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 162 - Full Document

Mohd.Yunus Khan vs State Of U.P.& Ors on 28 September, 2010

32. Under the circumstances and in view of the fact that the Disciplinary Authority had clearly taken into consideration past conduct of the petitioner whilst deciding the quantum of punishment without bringing this aspect to the notice of the petitioner, the petition deserves to be allowed. Consequently, the impugned order of the Tribunal, as well as the orders of the Disciplinary Authority dated 17th June, 1992 and the Appellate Authority dated 16th November, 1994 are all quashed and set aside. Since the petitioner has already reached the age of superannuation; and in the light of the approach adopted by the Supreme Court in Mohd. Yunus Khan (supra), the petitioner shall be paid 50% of the wages from the date of his removal from service till the date when he would have reached the age of superannuation. The retiral benefits, in accordance with law, from the date he would have retired in the normal course if the WP(C) No.5653/2007 Page 19 of 20 impugned orders had not been issued, which have remained unpaid, and which may become due and payable as a consequence of this judgment, shall also be computed by the respondent in terms of the relevant rules and paid to him by the respondent within three months from today.
Supreme Court of India Cites 29 - Cited by 187 - B S Chauhan - Full Document
1