Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.24 seconds)
Arun Kumar Rajak vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 28 February, 2024 cites

Rabindra Nath Singh vs The Bihar State Road Transport on 13 October, 2009

In so far as the present case is concerned, the order initiating proceeding at Annexure-3 simply directs the petitioner to file his reply before the Conducting Officer which is contrary to the stipulations present at rule 17(4) of 'the Disciplinary Rules' and has come up for criticism by a Division Bench of this Court while considering similar provisions under the 'Disciplinary Patna High Court CWJC No.6456 of 2018 dt.28-02-2024 6/13 Rules' then in existence, in a judgment reported in 1996(2) PLJR 95 (Ravindra Nath Singh Vs. Bihar State Road Transport Corporation) and the observations made in paragraph 6 of the judgment squarely would apply to the case in hand.
Patna High Court - Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 14 - N P Singh - Full Document

State Of U.P. & Ors vs Saroj Kumar Sinha on 2 February, 2010

"It is not in dispute that though a Presenting Officer was appointed for the enquiry but he did not choose to lead any evidence drawn against the petitioner or examine the petitioner on the allegation. On the contrary it is the Enquiry Officer who took this duty upon himself. Rule 17 of „the Rules‟ draws a Patna High Court CWJC No.6456 of 2018 dt.28-02-2024 8/13 complete scheme of the proceeding and details the manner in which a proceeding is to be conducted. Rule 17(14) very eloquently describes as to how a proceeding is to proceed on the date fixed. A mandatory duty has been cast on the Presenting Officer to examine the witnesses and lead evidence collected against a delinquent. This mandatory duty has not been discharged. Instead the Enquiry Officer took this duty upon himself even when such practice has been deprecated by the Courts on different occasions. For ready reference I would refer to a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (2010) 2 SCC 772 (State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha). At paragraph 28 of the judgment the Supreme Court has the following words of advise for the enquiry officer:
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 718 - S S Nijjar - Full Document

Panchanan Kumar vs State Of Bihar Electricity Boa on 22 July, 2011

In continuation I would also refer to a judgment reported in 1996 (1) PLJR 401 (Panchanan Kumar vs. The Bihar State Electricity Board) in which case though a Presenting Officer was appointed but he failed to discharge his obligation and in his absence his role was assumed by the Enquiry Officer. The opinion of the Bench at paragraph 11 of the judgment would be relevant for the issue at hand:
Patna High Court - Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 21 - Full Document

The State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Rajit Singh on 22 March, 2022

"8. It appears from the order passed by the Tribunal that the Tribunal also observed that the enquiry proceedings were against the principles of natural justice inasmuch as the documents mentioned in the charge-sheet were not at all supplied to the delinquent officer. As per the settled proposition of law, in a case where it is found that the enquiry is not conducted properly and/or the same is in violation of the principles of natural justice, in that case, the Court cannot reinstate the employee as such and the matter is to be remanded to the enquiry officer/disciplinary authority to proceed further with the enquiry Patna High Court CWJC No.6456 of 2018 dt.28-02-2024 12/13 from the stage of violation of principles of natural justice is noticed and the enquiry has to be proceeded further after furnishing the necessary documents mentioned in the charge- sheet, which are alleged to have not been given to the delinquent officer in the instant case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 18 - M R Shah - Full Document
1