Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.31 seconds)

Union Of India & Ors vs P.Gunasekaran on 3 November, 2014

5. Per contra, counsel appearing for the respondents has vehemently opposed the contentions and supported the impugned order stating that the petitioner who has participated in the departmental enquiry has never raised such objection before the authorities. It is only after conclusion of the departmental enquiry and passing of the punishment order, such objection was taken for the first time in this writ petition. It is argued that the interference with respect to departmental enquiry is limited to the extent that there cannot be any reappreciation of evidence at this stage. In this regard, certain parameters have been provided in the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court with respect to interference in the cases of departmental enquiry. Placing reliance upon the judgment passed in the case of Union of India and others vs. P. Gunasekaran reported in (2015) 2 SCC 610, he has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 856 - Full Document

Ram Prakash Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 August, 2022

8. From the perusal of the aforesaid, it is apparently clear that the enquiry officer himself has acted as a prosecutor in the case and has cross-examined the witnesses which is not permissible in law. The aforesaid aspect was considered in the case of Ram Prakash Singh (supra) wherein the case of Union of India vs K.D. Pandey reported in (2002) 10 SCC 471 was taken note of and it has been held as under :
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - V Agarwal - Full Document

Union Of India vs D.K. Pandey on 1 September, 2017

8. From the perusal of the aforesaid, it is apparently clear that the enquiry officer himself has acted as a prosecutor in the case and has cross-examined the witnesses which is not permissible in law. The aforesaid aspect was considered in the case of Ram Prakash Singh (supra) wherein the case of Union of India vs K.D. Pandey reported in (2002) 10 SCC 471 was taken note of and it has been held as under :
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 6 - Full Document
1