Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.43 seconds)
Ms Ramani Krishnan vs Commissioner Central Provident Fund on 17 October, 2019 cites

State Of Andhra Pradesh vs S. Sree Rama Rao on 10 April, 1963

The applicant having deliberately failed to traverse the testimony of witness during the inquiry is precluded from raising the issue of adequacy of evidence adduced in domestic inquiry at this stage and the same is not permissible on the score that judiciary has already set in ratio on this count i.e. Civil Appeal No.10942/2014 in G.M.(operations) State Bank of India in order dtd.10.12.2014 by the Hon'ble Apex Court. The deposition submitted by Sri G.Abhinandan(Annexure-R1) emanates that applicant has cross-examined the said witness and could not 11 OA.No.170/00823/2016/CAT/Bangalore Bench disprove the evidence/statement. As such it is not permissible for the applicant for questioning the adequacy/veracity of documentary evidence. The respondents have quoted the Hon'ble Apex Court judgment in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh vs. S.Sree Rama Rao (AIR 1963 SC 1723) in support of their contention. The respondents had conducted the inquiry in all fairness and resorted to imposition of major penalty of removal from service on the strength of evidence/documents on records. The respondents relied on the judgments of Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in WP(C).No.4569/2010 & WP.No.5248/2010 in support of their stand.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 744 - J C Shah - Full Document

B.C. Chaturvedi vs Union Of India And Ors on 1 November, 1995

The chain of events as narrated by the prosecution witnesses distinguish in itself that applicant has demanded and accepted the bribe from the members/prosecution witnesses and applicant failed to shift the burden of proof. The production of material evidence i.e. currency notes is not a prerequisite on the part of DA for establishing the cause rather it is evident from the findings of IO. The IO has taken all precaution to ascertain the two hall marks of the electronic device i.e. source and authenticity and on appreciating the evidence has taken on record the CD and on perusing the visuals by all parties to the proceedings has affirmed the imputation of charge vide report dtd.4.2.2015. The diligence exercised by the IO is reasonable and acceptable in the manner known to law/legal procedure. The DA has acted on the findings of IO's report which is based on preponderance of probability and applicant is not entitled for any relief on the grounds of re-appreciation of evidence as has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of B.C.Chaturvedi vs. UOI [(1995) 6 SCC 749] that 're- appreciation of evidence is not ordinarily feasible while enforcing discipline in departmental proceedings and as such claim of the applicant regarding non- adherence of principles of criminal procedure code is extraneous to the facts on hand. As such the list of documents mentioned in Annexure III of charge memo stood the test of scrutiny and eventual findings of IO and orders of the 1 st and 2nd respondents had attained finality. Hence, the OA is liable to be dismissed. 13 OA.No.170/00823/2016/CAT/Bangalore Bench
Supreme Court of India Cites 28 - Cited by 2256 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document
1