Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.35 seconds)
Shri Mashkoor Ahmad vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 6 November, 2006 cites

Tara Chand Khatri vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi And Ors. on 26 November, 1976

13. The petitioner has cited a good number of authorities in support of his plea that the disciplinary authority in passing an order of punishment is acting as a quasi judicial authority and must give a speaking order disclosing application of mind. There is no quarrel with this proposition. As mentioned above, the disciplinary authority in this case has given reasons for imposing the punishment namely the heavy losses caused to the Corporation by his `misplaced generosity' beyond his power and in violation of applicable procedure, instructions and guidelines. The disciplinary authority has agreed with the finding of the inquiry officer. It is not necessary for the disciplinary authority in such a case to give further reasons for agreeing with the decision of the inquiry officer. The Supreme Court went into the question related with the necessity to pass a speaking order in the case of Tara Chand Khatri v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors. . The Supreme Court laid down that in case the disciplinary authority differs with the inquiry officer it has an obligation to give reasons for its difference. But the situation is quite different if the disciplinary authority agrees with the inquiry officer. After examining the previous judgment on this issue, the Supreme Court said:
Supreme Court of India Cites 27 - Cited by 102 - J Singh - Full Document
1