Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.18 seconds)Roop Singh Negi vs Punjab National Bank & Ors on 19 December, 2008
19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Roop
Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank & Ors; (2009) 2 SCC
570 held that evidence collected by the Investigating Officer
cannot be treated to be evidence in departmental proceeding
and will have to be proved by examination of witness. Mere
tendering of evidence would not prove the contents thereof.
Relevant paragraph of the judgment is reproduced herein
below for ready reference :-
Managing Director Ecil Hyderabad Etc. ... vs B. Karunakar Etc. Etc on 1 October, 1993
10. ECIL (supra) by a larger Bench, on
a reference made, reaffirmed the dictum in Mohd.
Ramzan Khan (supra). These were cases in which
the Hon'ble Supreme Court found that a
reasonable opportunity, to defend the allegation of
misconduct levelled and represent against the
findings of the enquiry report, was not afforded to
the delinquent employee; in which case alone there
Patna High Court L.P.A No.770 of 2024 dt.20-11-2024
12/14
could be a remand made for the purpose of curing
the defect and affording a reasonable opportunity
to the delinquent employee."
Union Of India & Ors vs P.Gunasekaran on 3 November, 2014
21. Further relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors vs. P.
Gunasekaran; (2015) 2 SCC 610, this Court in the case of
Vikash Kumar (supra) further proceeded to hold as follows :-
The Bihar Public Service Commi vs Vikas Kumar & Anr on 19 May, 2009
22. Coming to the facts of the instant case, this Court
finds that no document having been brought on evidence
except for the letter dated 10.12.2014 of the Vigilance
Investigation Bureau and more so, not a single witness having
been examined to prove the charges against the writ petitioner,
it is a case of no evidence having been led against the writ
petitioner in the departmental proceeding. The case not being
one of technical defect caused to the delinquent as may occur
on account of non-supply of enquiry report, order remanding
the matter, in terms of the judgment in the case of Vikash
Kumar (supra) would amount to 'offering a premium to the
negligence of the Management/ Disciplinary Authority and
condoning the levity with which the departmental enquiry was
conducted'.
1