Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.20 seconds)
Arabinda Das vs State Of West Bengal And Ors. on 3 December, 1987 cites

C. S. Rowjee And Others vs Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport ... on 27 January, 1964

6. This is reprehensible. Mr. Maity while urging on the question of incurable infirmities which crept in the proceedings referred to the second show cause notice which, according to Mr. Maity was in complete violation of the provisions of the West Bengal Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1971. Finally the order of punishment was seriously attacked by Mr. Maity on the ground that the said order was in complete contravention of Sub-rule (10) of Rule 10. While extending his submission on the ground of violation Mr. Maity also relied on Sub-rules (8) and (9) and (10) of Rule 10. The entire proceeding according to Mr. Maity was incurably infected with the breach of provisions contained in the Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution. The Rule was ready as regards service as far as back as on 26th October, 1979. No affidavit-in-to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of C.S. Rouji v. State of Andhra Pradesh , in support of his contention that there is an imperative need for filing of counter-affidavit. In the absence of counter-affidavit averments made in the writ application should be taken to have been admitted. Since there is no affidavit in opposition, the basic grievance of the petitioner in the petition goes unchallenged and uncontroverted.
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 113 - N R Ayyangar - Full Document

R.H. Wernicke And Ors. And The ... vs The Secretary Of State For India In ... on 3 May, 1909

12. Reliance on the undisclosed materials is seriously challenged by Mr. Maity on the ground of violation of the rules of natural justice. The salutary principle is that an adjudicatory body is to decide the matter on the basis of materials placed before it in the course of proceedings. It cannot take extraneous matters into consideration, it cannot base its decision on any material unless the person against whom it is sought to be relied upon has been given an opportunity to rebut or explain the same. Reference may be made to the case of H, Savey & Co. v. Secretary of State for the Environment (1978) 1 All. England Reporter 586. If the adjudicatory authority seeks to rely on any materials and evidence both oral or documentary, for reaching his conclusion then the person to be affected by the decision of the said adjudicatory authority must be properly apprised of the undisclosed materials. Right to know the materials on which the authority is relying for taking decision, is a part of the right to defend oneself. Non-disclosure of evidence or materials to the affected party has been found to be incurable infirmity in the hearing proceeding.
Calcutta High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 15 - Full Document

Sasthi Chandra Roy vs The State Of West Bengal on 24 April, 1972

14. Next contention of Mr. Maity, in my view, has force in it. According to the West Bengal Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1971 it is no part of the function of the Enquiry Officer to make recommendation for punishment. The contention of Mr. Maity finds support from the judgment of the Court in the case of Sati Prasad Roy v. State of West Bengal 1979 CWN page 38.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 15 - Full Document
1