Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.23 seconds)Section 7 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 13 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Subhash Chandra Sharma vs Managing Director, U.P. Co-Op. Spg. ... on 7 September, 1999
11. A Division Bench of this Court in Subash Chandra Sharma v. Managing Director and another, 2000 (1) UPLBEC 541, considering the question as to whether holding of an oral inquiry is necessary or not, held that if no oral inquiry is held, it amounts to denial of principles of natural justice to the delinquent employee.
State Of U.P. & Ors vs Saroj Kumar Sinha on 2 February, 2010
16. Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held in the said judgment of Saroj Kumar Sinha (supra) that it is only in case when the Government servant, despite notice, fails to appear during the course of enquiry that Enquiry Officer can proceed ex parte and even in such circumstances it is incumbent upon the Enquiry Officer to record the statement of witness.
State Of U.P. & vs T.P. Lal Srivastava on 20 September, 1996
''It is well-settled that when the statute provides to do a thing in a particular manner that thing has to be done in that very manner. We are of the considered opinion that any punishment awarded on the basis of an enquiry not conducted in accordance with the enquiry rules meant for that very purposes is unsustainable in the eye of law. We are further of the view that the procedure prescribed under the inquiry rules for imposing major penalty is mandatory in nature and unless those procedures are followed, any out come inferred thereon will be of no avail unless the charges are so glaring and unrefutable which does not require any proof. The view taken by us find support from the judgement of the Apex Court in State of U.P. and another v. T.P.Lal Srivastava, 1997 (1) LLJ 831, as well as by a Division Bench of this Court in Subash Chandra Sharma v. Managing Director and another, 2000 (1) UPLBEC 541.''
The Imperial Tobacco Company Of India ... vs Its Workmen on 16 March, 1961
17. Even if the employee refuses to participate in the enquiry the employer cannot straightaway dismiss him, but he must hold and ex parte enquiry where evidence must be led vide Imperial Tobacco Co. Ltd. v. Its Workmen, AIR 1962 SC 1348, Uma Shankar v. Registrar, 1992 (65) FLR 674 (All).
Mahesh Narain Gupta vs State Of U.P. & Others on 21 April, 2011
18. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mahesh Narain Gupta v. State of U.P. and others, (2011) 2 ILR 570, had also occasion to deal with the same issue. It held:
State Of U.P.Thru The Secy. Deptt. Of ... vs Aditya Prasad Srivastava And Another on 17 January, 2017
In State of U.P. v. Aditya Prasad Srivastava and another, 2017 (2) ADJ 554 (DB)(LB), again a Bench decision of this Court, it was held: