Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.26 seconds)
Union Of India Through General Manager ... vs Ashok Kumar Verma & Another on 24 August, 2017 cites

The Management Of State Bank Of India vs Smita Sharad Deshmukh & Anr on 1 March, 2017

39. Lastly, reliance is placed on Management of State Bank of India vs. Smita Sharad Deshmukh and another. (Supra). There, a charge was levelled that employee concerned has filed two forged certificates purportedly said to have been issued by Indian Institute of Bankers that the employee had passed CAIIB Part-II Examination. Therein, employer first got a verification from Indian Institute of Bankers, who replied that certificate was forged and no such certificate was sent by them to the employee. It is in these facts and circumstances, when there was already an evidence to prove that document was forged, Court held that employee cannot be allowed to gain anything by reassessing the evidence. Supreme Court recorded a categorical finding that forgery of certificate was an admitted position and finding was recorded on the basis of evidence. The observations made in para 8 of judgment are reproduced as under :-
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 28 - Full Document

Smt. Kamla Patel, Ramesh Kumar Mishra ... vs State Of M.P. And Ors. on 11 April, 2007

Reliance is placed on Ram Chandra Singh vs. Savitri Devi and others 2003 (8) SCC 319 ; Satwati Deswal vs. State of Haryana and others 2009 (27) LCD 1711 ; Kamla Charan Mishra vs. State of U.P. and others 2009 (27) LCD 130 ; Neeraj Bharadwaj vs. Marathwada Institute of Technology Engineering College, Bulandshahr and others 2002 (1) LBESR 1042 (All.).
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 325 - A K Patnaik - Full Document

Nagaraj Shivarao Karjagi vs Syndicate Bank Head Office Manipal And ... on 30 April, 1991

32. The matter does not rest here. Disciplinary authority after perusal of material and enquiry report found that charges were not proved. The said report was forwarded by disciplinary authority to General Manager (Vigilance), North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur for advise/recommendation. Vide letter dated 1.9.2005 (Vigilance), gave otherwise opinion whereupon disciplinary authority changed its opinion and passed 'Removal' order dated 3.10.2006. It shows that disciplinary authority instead of acting independently by applying its own mind, guided itself with the instructions of vigilance and worked under the dictates of Vigilance Authority though its action of passing order of punishment was a quasi-judicial function and it was supposed to exercise its own independent decision but that has not been done. Since order has been passed under dictates of Vigilance Authority, this is another ground found with Tribunal for setting aside order of punishment. For this purpose, Tribunal has relied upon Supreme Court's authority in Nagaraj Shivarao Karjagi vs. Syndicate Bank 1991 SCC (L& S) 965 .
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 153 - K J Shetty - Full Document

High Court Of Punjab And Haryana vs Amrik Singh on 23 November, 1994

In High Court Of Punjab And Haryana vs Amrik Singh 1995 Suppl. (1) SCC 321 Court has held that the delinquent officer must be supplied copies of documents relied upon in support of charges. If documents are voluminous and copies cannot be supplied, then such officer must be given an opportunity to inspect the same, or else, the principle of natural justice would be violated.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 35 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Neeraj Bharadwaj vs Marathwada Institute Of Technology And ... on 12 April, 2002

Reliance is placed on Ram Chandra Singh vs. Savitri Devi and others 2003 (8) SCC 319 ; Satwati Deswal vs. State of Haryana and others 2009 (27) LCD 1711 ; Kamla Charan Mishra vs. State of U.P. and others 2009 (27) LCD 130 ; Neeraj Bharadwaj vs. Marathwada Institute of Technology Engineering College, Bulandshahr and others 2002 (1) LBESR 1042 (All.).
Allahabad High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 3 - S K Singh - Full Document
1   2 Next