Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.87 seconds)
Union Of India And Ors vs Hardam Singh on 30 March, 2012 cites

State Of Punjab & Ors vs Dr. Harbhajan Singh Greasy on 12 April, 1996

In State of Punjab v. Harbhajan Singh Greasy 1996 SCC (L&S) 1248, the report of the inquiry officer leading to removal of the respondent from service was passed on an admission alleged to have been made by him. The High Court set aside the order of dismissal on the ground that the alleged admission was not supported by any written statement of the respondent. The High Court while setting aside the order directed reinstatement of the respondent in service. Setting aside the order of the High Court, Supreme Court, inter alia, held as under:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 106 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Union Of India vs Y.S.Sadhu.Ex-Inspector on 22 September, 2008

In Union of India v. Y.S. Sadhu-Ex.-Inspector 2009 (1) SCC (L&S) 126, the departmental inquiry against the respondent was found to be defective inasmuch as the witnesses who had been examined earlier were not produced for cross-examination. Based upon the findings returned in the inquiry, the respondent was dismissed from service. The order of dismissal of the respondent from service was set aside by the High Court which also directed his reinstatement without back wages. The Supreme Court, however, held that the proper course which the High Court should have adopted was to allow the proceedings to continue from the stage where it stood before the alleged vulnerability surfaced.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 144 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Chairman-Cum-M.D.,Coal India Ld.& Ors vs Ananta Saha & Ors on 6 April, 2011

In Chairman-cum-M.D., Coal India Ltd. & Ors. v. Ananta Saha & Ors Civil Appeal No. 2958/2011, decided by the Supreme Court on 06.04.2011, the delinquent was dismissed from service vide order dated 17.06.1993 passed by the CMD of ECL, a subsidiary of CIL. The order of dismissal was set aside in a writ petition filed by the delinquent on the ground that it had not been passed by CMD W.P(C) 6428/2011 Page 6 of 13 of CIL, who was the Competent Authority under the Disciplinary Rules. The appeal filed by CIL against that order was dismissed. While dismissing the appeal, it was held by the High Court that the delinquent would be treated in the light of judgment of Supreme Court in Managing Director ECL, Hyderabad etc.etc. v. B.Karunakar etc.: AIR 1994 SC 1074. However, the direction for holding the disciplinary proceedings de-novo was not altered. In view of the decision of the Division Bench, the delinquent was reinstated. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated and a fresh suspension order was passed. Vide an order dated 24.2.2004 passed by CMD of CIL, the delinquent was dismissed from service. An appeal was filed by the delinquent challenging the order of dismissal. However, without waiting for the outcome of the appeal, he filed a Writ Petition challenging the order of dismissal. The Writ Petition was allowed on the ground that the Disciplinary Authority did not ensure compliance with the order of the High Court and the fresh inquiry was initiated by the Officer on Special Duty who was not the Disciplinary Authority. The learned Single Judge was of the view that the proceedings could have been initiated only by the CMD of CIL. The order of dismissal dated 24.2.2010 was therefore quashed. CIL was however, given liberty to hold a fresh inquiry. The appeal filed by CIL was dismissed holding that the disciplinary proceedings had not been initiated by a competent person since no one other than CMD of CIL could have initiated the same. It was also held that the CMD of ECL W.P(C) 6428/2011 Page 7 of 13 was not the Competent Authority for the purpose. The Supreme Court, after examining the rules applicable to the delinquent, held that the disciplinary proceedings could be initiated either by the CMD of Coal India Limited or CMD of its subsidiary ECL, and therefore the High Court had erred in holding that CMD of ECL was not competent to initiate the proceedings. The Supreme Court also held that since the High Court had given liberty to the appellants to hold a de-novo inquiry it was not permissible for them to proceed on the charge-sheet which they had issued earlier and therefore the question of initiating a fresh inquiry without giving a fresh charge-sheet could not arise. It was also found by the Supreme Court that CMD of ECL had merely signed the proposal mooted by the OSD for appointment of an Inquiry Officer to hold a fresh inquiry into the earlier charge- sheet and there was nothing on record to indicate that he had applied his mind before putting his signature on the proposals, though the law required him to pass some positive order taking into consideration the material on record. On this count Supreme Court found no fault with the order of the High Court. The appeal filed by CIL was partly allowed by reversing the finding of the High Court that the CMD of ECL was not competent to initiate the disciplinary proceedings. The Supreme Court directed that it was open to the appellants to initiate a fresh disciplinary proceeding by issuing a fresh charge-sheet. The delinquent sought directions from the Supreme Court for his reinstatement and payment of arrears of salary till the W.P(C) 6428/2011 Page 8 of 13 date of the order. This was opposed by the appellants who informed the Court that the delinquent had been practicing privately and question of back wages shall be determined by the Disciplinary Authority on conclusion of the fresh inquiry. It was also submitted that the result of the fresh inquiry in such a case relates back to the date of termination.
Supreme Court of India Cites 32 - Cited by 416 - B S Chauhan - Full Document
1