Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.22 seconds)
Jay Shankar Pandey vs Rajya Sabha Secretariate on 16 December, 2015 cites

Anant R Kulkarni vs Y.P.Education Society & Ors on 26 April, 2013

8. It was contended by learned counsel for petitioner that the evidence led by petitioner has not been considered by the Inquiry Officer and the very initiation of inquiry against petitioner was motivated because the respondent was aggrieved, as petitioner had not attended the office on 21st and 22nd, April, 2000 despite being told to do so. It was submitted there were holidays on these two dates and petitioner had not received any instruction to attend the office for urgent work on these two dates. Lastly, it was submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that although it was the case of respondent that petitioner had used derogatory remarks against Smt. Sarita Sharma (SW-1) but she has not deposed to this effect and had gone on record to say that petitioner had used derogatory remarks against Chief Editor but the Chief Editor had not come forward to depose against petitioner and so, there was no justification whatsoever to impose penalty W.P.(C) 6134/2002 Page 4 of 8 upon petitioner and it deserves to be set aside. Learned counsel for petitioner relied upon decision in Anant R. Kulkarni Vs. Y.P. Education Society & ors. (2013) 6 SCC 515 to contend that the charges should be specific, definite and giving details of the incident which formed the basis of charges and no inquiry can be sustained on vague charges.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 262 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

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

9. Learned counsel for respondent supported the impugned orders and Memorandums and submitted that the evidence of Smt. Poonam Wadhawan (SW-III) fully supports the charge against petitioner and she had not been cross-examined at all. It was pointed out that the evidence of respondent's witnesses cannot be labeled to be vague because it has come in the evidence of witnesses that petitioner used to pass indecent comments and there is no cross-examination of witnesses on this aspect. It was submitted on behalf of respondent that petitioner cannot be allowed to challenge the adverse ACRs as well as the Inquiry Report by filing one petition and that the evidence on record fully justifies the penalty imposed upon petitioner and therefore, this petition deserves dismissal. To highlight the scope of judicial review in matters like the instant one, reliance was placed by learned counsel for respondent upon decision in Union of India Vs. P. Gunasekaran (2015) 2 SCC 610.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 856 - Full Document
1