Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (0.23 seconds)
Date Of Decision: 24.07.2024 vs The State Of Meghalaya on 24 July, 2024 cites

State Of U.P vs Harendra Arora & Anr on 2 May, 2001

33. As to the contention that the enquiry report was never furnished to the petitioner, the State respondent has countered this argument by citing the case of State of U.P. v. Harendra Arora (supra) and also the case of Haryana Financial Corporation (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court at para 12 of the former and at para 17 of the latter has held that non-supply of enquiry report would not be fatal to the order of punishment unless prejudice is shown. The facts of the case as admitted by the petitioner is that he had come in possession of the enquiry report by way of an RTI enquiry and has therefore been able to file his appeal against the impugned dismissal order dated 19.05.2021 issued on the basis of the said enquiry report before the competent authority and as such, the order of dismissal having been confirmed in appeal vide order 14 2024:MLHC:659 dated 11.08.2021 (Annexure-11 to this petition), it is apparent that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner as far as opportunity to defend his case is concerned.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 192 - B N Agrawal - Full Document

Maan Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 18 February, 2003

20. The learned AAG has also submitted that this is not the first occasion where the petitioner was found to have been missing from active duty without any cause or intimation to the authorities concerned, 7 2024:MLHC:659 but in fact, he is a habitual absentee who have been found absent from duty without obtaining prior permission or approval from the competent authority on several occasions. For this, he has been punished with his pay being held up and leave without pay being awarded. The petitioner has also committed indiscipline of various types for which four disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. This would show that he is a person unbecoming of serving in a police force. Therefore, the punishment that was meted out to him, that is dismissal from service is just and proper under the circumstances. The case of Maan Singh v. Union of India reported in (2003) 3 SCC 464, at para 11 was relied upon by the learned AAG to lay stress on this point.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 54 - Full Document

Chairman & Md V.S.P. & Ors vs Goparaju Sri Prabhakara Hari Babu on 5 March, 2008

21. The next contention raised by the learned AAG is that the petitioner on receipt of the show cause notice consisting of the charges along with the statement of allegations framed against him, in his written statement filed on 17.02.2021, the petitioner had categorically admitted that he was absent without proper leave or permission from the competent authority. Even in his statement before the Enquiry Officer made on 22.03.2021, the petitioner had reiterated his admission that he was absent from duty since 15.12.2020. Therefore, in view of such admission and in terms of the provision of Section 58 of the Evidence Act, charges having been admitted were not required to be proved and as such, it was not even necessary for the Enquiry Officer to go through the motion of the enquiry proceedings in the light of such admission of guilt. To support this point, the case of Chairman & Managing Director, V.S.P. & Ors. v. Goparaju Sri Prabhakara Hari Babu, (2008) 5 SCC 569, para 16, 18 and 19, the case of Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Limited & Anr. v. Mukul Kumar Choudhuri & Ors., (2009) 15 SCC 620, 8 2024:MLHC:659 para 13 and 14 and the case of Channabasappa Basappa Happali v. State of Mysore, (1971) 1 SCC 1, para 5 have been cited.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 128 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Channabasappa Basappa Happali vs State Of Mysore on 16 October, 1970

21. The next contention raised by the learned AAG is that the petitioner on receipt of the show cause notice consisting of the charges along with the statement of allegations framed against him, in his written statement filed on 17.02.2021, the petitioner had categorically admitted that he was absent without proper leave or permission from the competent authority. Even in his statement before the Enquiry Officer made on 22.03.2021, the petitioner had reiterated his admission that he was absent from duty since 15.12.2020. Therefore, in view of such admission and in terms of the provision of Section 58 of the Evidence Act, charges having been admitted were not required to be proved and as such, it was not even necessary for the Enquiry Officer to go through the motion of the enquiry proceedings in the light of such admission of guilt. To support this point, the case of Chairman & Managing Director, V.S.P. & Ors. v. Goparaju Sri Prabhakara Hari Babu, (2008) 5 SCC 569, para 16, 18 and 19, the case of Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Limited & Anr. v. Mukul Kumar Choudhuri & Ors., (2009) 15 SCC 620, 8 2024:MLHC:659 para 13 and 14 and the case of Channabasappa Basappa Happali v. State of Mysore, (1971) 1 SCC 1, para 5 have been cited.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 115 - M Hidayatullah - Full Document

Haryana Financial Corporation & Anr vs Kailash Chandra Ahuja on 8 July, 2008

33. As to the contention that the enquiry report was never furnished to the petitioner, the State respondent has countered this argument by citing the case of State of U.P. v. Harendra Arora (supra) and also the case of Haryana Financial Corporation (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court at para 12 of the former and at para 17 of the latter has held that non-supply of enquiry report would not be fatal to the order of punishment unless prejudice is shown. The facts of the case as admitted by the petitioner is that he had come in possession of the enquiry report by way of an RTI enquiry and has therefore been able to file his appeal against the impugned dismissal order dated 19.05.2021 issued on the basis of the said enquiry report before the competent authority and as such, the order of dismissal having been confirmed in appeal vide order 14 2024:MLHC:659 dated 11.08.2021 (Annexure-11 to this petition), it is apparent that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner as far as opportunity to defend his case is concerned.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 227 - C K Thakker - Full Document
1   2 3 Next