Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 31 (0.26 seconds)Section 4 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
The Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Section 6 in The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976 [Entire Act]
Section 6 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976
Article 300A in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr vs The Chiief Election Commissioner, New ... on 2 December, 1977
10. ...We are unable to agree with the submission of the learned Attorney General. It is not always a necessary inference that if opportunity is expressly provided in one provision and not so provided in another, opportunity is to foe considered as excluded from that other provision. It may be a weighty consideration to be taken into account but the weightier consideration is whether the administrative action entails civil consequences. This was also the view taken in Mohinder Singh Gill v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi Where it was observed (at p. 316):
Union Of India And Ors vs Mohd. Ramzan Khan on 20 November, 1990
(iv) In the view that we have taken, viz., that the right to make representation to the disciplinary authority against the findings recorded in the inquiry report is an integral part of the opportunity of defence against the charges and is a breach of principles of natural justice to deny the said right, it is only appropriate that the law laid down in Mohd. Ramzan Khan's case AIR 1991 SC 471 (supra) should apply to employees in all establishments whether Government or non-Government, public or private. This will be the case whether there are rules governing the disciplinary proceeding or not and whether they expressly prohibit the furnishing of the copy of the report or are silent on the subject. Whatever the natural of punishment, further, whenever the rules require an inquiry to be held, for inflicting the punishment in question, the delinquent employee should have the benefit of the report of the Inquiry Officer before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges levelled against him. Hence question (iv) is answered accordingly.
A. K. Kraipak & Ors. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors on 29 April, 1969
6. The origins of the law can also be traced to the principles of natural justice, as developed in the following cases: In A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India , it was held that the rules of natural justice operate in areas not covered by any law. They do not supplant the law of the land but supplement it. They are not embodied rules and their aim is to secure justice or to prevent miscarriage of justice. If that is their purpose, there is no reason why they should not be made applicable to administrative proceedings also especially when it is not easy to draw the line that demarcates administrative enquiries from quasi-judicial ones. An unjust decision in an administrative inquiry may have a more far reaching effect than a decision in a quasi-judicial inquiry. It was further observed that the concept of natural justice has undergone a great deal of change in recent years. What particular rule of natural justice should apply to a given case must depend to a great extent on the facts and circumstance of that case, the framework of the law under which the inquiry is held and the constitution of the tribunal or the body of persons appointed for that purpose. Whenever a complaint is made before a Court that some principle of natural justice has been contravened, the Court has to decide whether the observance of that rule was necessary for a just decision on the facts of that case. The rule that inquiry must be held in good faith and without bias and not arbitrarily or unreasonably is now included among the principles of natural justice.