Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.33 seconds)
Suresh Chand vs The Presiding Officer, Cgit & Another on 19 December, 2008 cites

State Bank Of India vs Tarun Kumar Banerjee And Ors on 19 September, 2000

12. I also reject the contention of the petitioner that merely because Smt. Raj Kali had withdrawn the complaint, enquiry should not have been proceeded. As mentioned above, complaint was made on 20.1.1983 and after the charge sheet was served upon the petitioner she withdrew the complaint. As it is the concern of every employer to ensure that the conduct of its employees is without blemish and keeping in view that there was such a serious charge against the petitioner, if the bank decided to go with the enquiry, it had the right to do so (See State Bank of India Vs. Tarun Kumar Banerjee AIR 2000 SC 3028).
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 66 - Full Document

Vinod Chaturvedi Etc. Etc vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 March, 1984

i. In the award of the Ld. Industrial Tribunal, First ground is discussed about no legal admission evidence. The Tribunal found that the non-production of the complainant-Rajkali does not vitiate the enquiry and the deposition of the management witness is legally admissible and substantive evidence and it is not necessary that the complainant be examined in every case. According to the petitioner, the Ld. Industrial Tribunal failed to apply its mind that the WP(C) No.168/1991 Page 4 charge was based on a complaint of Smt. Rajkali which was only thumb impression and it was typed in English and therefore it was mandatory and in all fairness complainant Rajkali was required to be examined. The petitioner placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vinod Chaturvedi and Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 1984(2) S.C.C. 350. In this case, Supreme Court took the view that the examination of writer was necessary so that the opportunity could be given to the defence to cross examine the writer otherwise the reliance is totally misconceived.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 30 - M Rangnath - Full Document

J. D. Jain vs The Management Of State Bank Of India & ... on 17 December, 1981

14. The Tribunal also relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of J.D.Jain Vs. Management of State Bank of India (Supreme Court Lab. Judgments Vol. V Page I). That was also a case where the complainant was WP(C) No.168/1991 Page 12 not examined and the Supreme Court held that enquiry will not be treated as vitiated on this ground. Insofar as non-production of hand writing expert is concerned, the Tribunal has dealt with in the following manner:
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 98 - B Islam - Full Document

Ishwari Prasad Mishra vs Mohammad Isa on 27 August, 1962

Relieance is placed by the petitioner on (1) Para 26 of the WP(C) No.168/1991 Page 5 decision in the case of Ishwari Prasad Vs. Md. Isha Reported in AIR 1963 S.C. 1728 (2) Para 21 of the decision in the case of Shashi Kumar Banerjee Vs. Subodh Kumar reported in AIR 1964 S.C. 529). It is further submitted that the report of handwriting expert was not supplied with the charge sheet which is clear from the dates and it shows that it was procured at a later stage as suitable to the bank and its credibility and authenticity is doubtful. It is submitted that in departmental enquiry the fairness and compliance of the principles of natural justice are the basic requirement even when not called upon from the defence.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 177 - P B Gajendragadkar - Full Document

Shashi Kumar Banerjee & Ors vs Subodh Kumar Banerjee Since Deceased & ... on 13 September, 1963

Relieance is placed by the petitioner on (1) Para 26 of the WP(C) No.168/1991 Page 5 decision in the case of Ishwari Prasad Vs. Md. Isha Reported in AIR 1963 S.C. 1728 (2) Para 21 of the decision in the case of Shashi Kumar Banerjee Vs. Subodh Kumar reported in AIR 1964 S.C. 529). It is further submitted that the report of handwriting expert was not supplied with the charge sheet which is clear from the dates and it shows that it was procured at a later stage as suitable to the bank and its credibility and authenticity is doubtful. It is submitted that in departmental enquiry the fairness and compliance of the principles of natural justice are the basic requirement even when not called upon from the defence.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 650 - Full Document
1