Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (3.51 seconds)
Nand Kishor Rai vs Central Excise & Customs on 25 April, 2024 cites

K.C. Sareen vs C.B.I., Chandigarh on 2 August, 2001

In the meantime, the Disciplinary Authority in light of power conferred upon him in terms of provisions of Rule 19(1) of the CCS (CCA) Rules and 19 O.A. 350/00824/2020 various instructions issued by DoP&T notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 14 to Rule 18 of CCS (CCA) Rules (for dispensing with inquiry in cases of conviction and other special circumstances) and by referring to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K.C. Sareen v. CBI, Chandigarh (2001) 6 SCC 584 had imposed major penalty of 'Dismissal' from service upon the applicant vide speaking order dated 01.06.2018 (Annexure A/6 collectively refer).
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 413 - Full Document

Nelson Motis vs Union Of India And Another on 2 September, 1992

16. So far, submission of Ld. Counsel for the applicant that since the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Hon'ble High Court was right in avoiding / eschewing the evidence which formed part of the different crime number which was in fact closed, according to the applicant, the said closed case being No. RC-1(A)/2013-AC-III has been held to be closed, therefore, the disciplinary proceedings which were instituted against the applicant vide charge memorandum dated 23.09.2016 and 09.12.2016 based on crime registered by CBI being RC-01(A)/2013/AC-III and the said RC- 03(A)/2013 is required to be cancelled / rescind / withdrawn / set aside, is concerned, in our considered view, the disciplinary proceeding instituted against the applicant under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules vide impugned charge memorandum which are undisputedly based on the investigation carried out by the CBI in No. RC- 01(A)/2013/CBI-AC-III and same has been held to be closed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 123-124/2023 decided on 18.04.2024. It is settled principle of law that the nature and scope of criminal case are very different from those of departmental proceeding and an order of acquittal, cannot conclude the departmental proceeding as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nelson 23 O.A. 350/00824/2020 Motis v. Union of India reported in (1992) 4 SCC 711 : (1993) SCC (L&S) 13.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 332 - L M Sharma - Full Document

P.V. Mahadevan vs M.D. Tamil Nadu Housing Board on 8 August, 2005

In support of the said submission, reliance has been placed on the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of P.V. Mahadevan v. Md. T.N. Housing Board (2005) SCC 636 wherein it has clearly been laid down that inordinate delay of 10 years in initiating 5 O.A. 350/00824/2020 departmental enquiry against the appellant renders departmental proceeding to be prima facie bad in law.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 781 - Full Document

Nand Kishore Rai vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 3 October, 2023

13. At this stage, we cannot ignore the fact that subsequently vide judgment dated 10.06.2022 in CRA 95 of 2018 (Nand Kishore Rai v. Central Bureau of Investigation) the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta while allowing the appeal of the applicant had quashed and set aside the order dated 06/07.02.2018 of conviction and sentence passed by the CBI Spl. Court in Spl Case No. 12/2015.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - P K Mishra - Full Document
1