Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.22 seconds)Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Central Bank Of India Ltd vs P.S. Rajagopalan Etc on 19 April, 1963
9. Keeping in view the principles laid down in the aforesaid authorities, it is to be seen whether it has rightly been held that the charge against the petitioner-appellant has been established.
C. L. Subramaniam vs Collector Of Customs, Cochin on 15 February, 1972
In C.L. Subramanium v. Collector of Customs 1973 (2) S.L.R. 415, their Lordships of the Supreme Court directed that no fresh enquiry shall be held against the appellant, in that case, and he be restored to be the position to which he would have been entitled to but for the impugned order.
Dewan Singh vs State Of Haryana & Another on 7 May, 1976
In Dewan Singh v. State of Haryana 1976 U.J. (S.C.) 662 while quashing the order of dismissal, it was directed that the appellant shall be re-instated in service with immediate effect and there shall be reinstated no further enquiry into the allegations forming the subject matter of the charge against him and that the period of absence shall be treated as leave without pay so that the appellant will not lose continuity of his service. The directions for not holding fresh enquiry in the above two cases was given in the facts and circumstances of these cases. They are distinguishable. Before a learned Single Judge of this Court saremal v. State and others (S.B Civil Writ Petition No. 992 of 1974, decided on December 9, 1980), a similar contention was raised and the teamed Single Judge observed that in charges involving financial matters, the matter has to be viewed seriously and it is always better for the petitioner to get himself exonerated of the charges after enquiry. It was further observed that it is true that the petitioner had already faced an inquiry once and has suffered mentally and otherwise for a very long period but on that basis it would not be justified that the direction may be given for not conducting inquiry second time.
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926
Bareilly Electricity Supply Co. Ltd vs The Workmen & Ors on 16 August, 1971
If the enquiry officer had Ex. A3 before him as asserted by the opposite-parties, it was his duty to call the person who had recorded that statement and verify its correctness from him. That document should also have been put to the petitioner and an opportunity ought lo have been given to him to explain the same. It would still be open for the non-petitioners to make a proper enquiry if it is considered desirable. What we mean to stress is, that the impugned order of dismissal against the petitioner cannot be maintained, because the findings against him are based on no evidence,
(Underlining is ours)
It was held in B.E. Supply Co. v. The Workmen that the application of principles of natural justice does not imply that what is not evidence can be acted upon and that on the other hand what it means is that no materials can be relied upon to establish a contested fact which are not spoken to by persons who are competent to speak about them and are subjected to cross-exaination by the party against whom they are sought to be used. It was observed as under:
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
S. L. Kapoor vs Jagmohan & Ors on 18 September, 1980
In a recent decision of Supreme Court, it has beea observed in S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan as follows: