Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.81 seconds)
Shri Rashik Behari Goswami, S/O Shri ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) (Through The ... on 2 February, 2006 cites

M.V. Thimmaiah vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 4 October, 2004

17. In so far as personal mala fides based on facts are concerned, it is trite law that mala fides cannot be established on mere suspicion and surmises. A strong foundation has to be led which is to be proved to its hilt. Any sentence here and there would not be sufficient compliance. However, the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court was being considered by an order passed by the Division Bench of this Tribunal at Bangalore in M.V. Thimmaiah v. Union of India and Ors. 2005 (2) SLJ (CAT) 113, where following observations have been made:
Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 26 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

R.P. Kapur And Others vs Sardar Pratap Singh Kairon And Others on 28 October, 1960

A Constitution Bench of the Honble Supreme Court in R.P. Kapur and Ors. v. Sardar Pratap Singh Kairon and Ors. , has taken the view that if serious allegations are made against a person, he owes a duty to the Court to file an affidavit stating the correct position regarding the allegations and not to leave the refutation of the allegations to Secretaries and other officers who only speak from the records. Their Lordship in this context dealing with an allegation against Chief Minister of State have observed as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 26 - S K Das - Full Document

Mohammad Ibrahim vs B. Rama Rao on 28 November, 1975

In Mohammad Ibrahim v. B. Rama Rao , the Honble Supreme Court while dealing with the procedure affidavit in opposition by the State Government agreeing with the grave concern expressed by the High Court that counter affidavits were prepared without any regard to accuracy hoped that Government will display greater competence and attention in drafting affidavits. As we noticed in this case specific averments are made in the original applications. But, we find that copies in a mechanical and stereotyped manner of same counter affidavit in all individual cases are filed by official respondents without reference to the points raised in each of the original applications including specific allegations of mala fides, arbitrariness etc.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 15 - Y V Chandrachud - Full Document

Food Corporation Of India, Hyderabad ... vs A. Prahalada Rao And Another on 1 November, 2000

5. In our view, on the basis of the allegation that Food Corporation of India is misusing its power of imposing minor penalties, the Regulation cannot be interpreted contrary to its language. Regulation 60(1)(b) mandates the disciplinary authority to form its opinion whether it is necessary to hold inquiry in a particular case or not. But that would not mean that in all cases where an employee disputes his liability, a full-fledged inquiry should be held. Otherwise, the entire purpose of incorporating summary procedure for imposing minor penalties would be frustrated. If the discretion given under Regulation 60(1)(b) is misused or is exercised in an arbitrary manner, it is open to the employee to challenge the same before the appropriate forum. It is for the disciplinary authority to decide whether regular departmental enquiry as contemplated under Regulation 58 for imposing major penalty should be followed or not. This discretion cannot be curtailed by interpretation which is contrary to the language used. Further, Regulation 60(2) itself provides that in a case if it is proposed to withhold increments of pay and such whilholding of increments is likely to affect adversely the amount of retirement benefits payable to an employee and in such other cases as mentioned therin, the disciplinary authority shall hold inquiry in the manner laid down in Regulation 58 before making any order imposing any such penalty. Hence, it is apparent that the High Court erroneously interpreted the Regulation by holding that once the employee denies the charge, it is incumbent upon the authority to conduct inquiry contemplated for imposing major penalty. It also erred in holding that where an employee denies that loss is caused to the Corporation either by his negligence or breach of order, such inquiry should be held. It is settled law that court's power of judicial review in such cases is limited and court can interfere with the rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry and imposing punishment or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence or is such that no reasonable person would have ever reached. As per the Regulation, holding of regular departmental enquiry is a discretionary power of the disciplinary authority which is to be exercised by considering the facts of each case and if it is misused or used arbitrarily, it would be subject to judicial review.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 60 - Full Document

O.K. Bhardwaj vs Union Of India And Ors. on 1 April, 1995

25. Though the applicant in his reply to the show cause has asked for an enquiry to be conducted, yet the disciplinary authority has not afforded a personal hearing to him as well. The issue regarding an opportunity of hearing in minor penalty was cropped up before the Apex Court in O.K. Bhardwaj v. Union of India and Ors. 2002 (SCC) (L&S) 188, where following observations have been made:
Delhi High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 117 - S D Pandit - Full Document

Mahabir Prasad Santosh Kumar vs State Of U.P. And Ors on 2 April, 1970

27. Moreover, while passing an order on quasi judicial side, administrative authorities are bound by Railway Boards instructions which supplement the statutory rules and are not in conflict as per Boards letter dated 3.1.1986 and 13.7.1981. Even in case of a minor penalty in the light of a decision of the Apex Court in Mahavir Prasad v. State of UP , recording of reasons by quasi judicial authority being obligatory, it has been impressed upon to the concerned while exercising disciplinary powers to pass self contained, speaking and reasoned orders.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 348 - J C Shah - Full Document
1