Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.34 seconds)
State Bank Of India And Ors vs K.P. Narayanan K.Utty on 16 January, 2003 cites

Punjab National Bank And Ors.The Chief ... vs Sh. Kunj Behari Misra, Sh. Shanti Prasad ... on 19 August, 1998

When asked, learned senior counsel for the appellants submitted that Regulation 7(2) of the Punjab National Bank Officer Employee' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1977 referred to in the Punjab National Bank case is para-materia to the Rule 50(3)(ii) of State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules governing the facts of the present case with which we are concerned. The contentions advanced by the learned senior counsel for the appellant before us are almost similar to the contentions advanced in the case of Punjab National Bank aforementioned.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 929 - Full Document

State Of Orissa vs Bidyabhujshan Mohapatra on 19 October, 1962

The distinction sought to be made on behalf of the appellants taking support from the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in Mohapatra 's case (supra) does not help them for two reasons: firstly, that was not a case where the controversy that has arisen in this case dealing with specific regulation was directly dealt with. As already stated above, in the case of Punjab National Bank a three Judge Bench of this Court has directly considered the effect of said Regulation, particularly and directly in regard to providing of an opportunity to be read into the Regulation. Secondly, on the facts of the case before the Constitution Bench, this Court found that the direction given by the High Court to reconsider as to the punishment imposed in that case was not correct.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 229 - J C Shah - Full Document

Union Bank Of India vs Vishwa Mohan on 7 April, 1998

In this regard the learned counsel cited a decision of this Court in Union Bank of India v. Vishwa Mohan, [1998] 4 SCC 310. As already noticed above, before the High Court both the parties concentrated only on one point, namely, the effect of not providing an opportunity by the disciplinary authority when the disciplinary authority disagreed with some findings of the enquiry officer. It was also not shown by the appellants before the High Court that no prejudice was caused to the respondent in the absence of providing any opportunity by the disciplinary authority. The aforementioned case of Vishwa Mohan is of no help to the appellants. The learned counsel invited our attention to para 9 of the said judgment. As is evident from the said paragraph this Court having regard to the facts of that case, taking note of the various acts of serious misconduct, found that no prejudice was caused to the delinquent officer.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 162 - S P Kurdukar - Full Document
1