Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.21 seconds)
C.P.Singh vs Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board on 22 July, 2022 cites

R.P. Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 4 August, 2005

20. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the penalty imposed upon the petitioner is rendered illegal for depriving him a reasonable opportunity. It is further submitted that, the CVC advice, on which basis the Disciplinary Authority had taken a different view from the Inquiry Officer, had not been served upon the petitioner before imposing the said penalty. Imposing of such penalty, without supplying the CVC advice to the petitioner is contrary to the law settled by the Division Bench of this Court in R.P. Singh Vs. Union of India, 2007 SCC OnLine Del 91, which held as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 298 - Full Document

Yoginath D. Bagde vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 16 September, 1999

In furtherance of the aforesaid argument made by the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, reliance was placed on decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Yoginath D. Bagde Vs. State of Maharashtra, (1999) 7 SCC 739, wherein it was held that in case of disagreement in inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority is precluded from taking a final view of the matter and instead take a tentative view. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the said case held as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 35 - Cited by 505 - S S Ahmad - Full Document

State Bank Of India And Others vs D.C. Aggarwal And Another on 13 October, 1992

26. Lastly, the counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India and Others vs. D.C. Aggarwal and Another, (1993) 1 SCC 13, wherein it was held that the disciplinary authority, while imposing punishment, major or minor, cannot act on material which is neither supplied nor shown to the delinquent. Imposition of punishment on an employee, on material which is not only not supplies but not disclosed to him cannot be countenanced. Procedural fairness is as much essence of right and liberty as the substantive law itself. It was found that CVC recommendation prepared behind the back of the respondent without his participation and its non-supply was violative of procedural safeguard and contrary to fair and just inquiry.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 192 - R M Sahai - Full Document
1