Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.23 seconds)Union Of India & Ors vs P.Thayagarajan on 24 November, 1998
So far as the other case, relied upon by the petitioner, namely, Union of India, (supra) is concerned, in that case enquiry was conducted and that was placed before the disciplinary authority and he directed for de novo enquiry. In that case the departmental proceeding was conducted against the respondent and two witnesses expressed their inability who were the employees of the Central Reserve Police Force to appear in the enquiry. Taking into consideration the said fact the disciplinary authority did not agree with the enquiry report and ordered for de novo enquiry. Dealing with the said matter the Apex Court held that as admittedly the enquiry was conducted in breach of the rule the de novo enquiry can be ordered. That was not a case where the earlier proceeding has been concluded and final order has been passed by the disciplinary authority. It is well settled principle of law that the disciplinary authority is not bound by the opinion of the Enquiry Officer and can take a different view. So the said decision rendered in that case has no application in the present case.
State Of Assam & Anr vs J. N. Roy Biswas on 6 October, 1975
In the case of J.N. Roy Biswas, (supra) the rule did not permit to reopen finally concluded departmental proceeding. Dealing with the said matter the Apex Court held that in absence of the rule once a Disciplinary proceeding concluded and employee has been exonerated the proceeding cannot be reopened or reviewed except in special circumstances showing deadly defect on the record i.e. if some technical and other procedural or other good ground or infirmities were there in the earlier proceeding. In this connection it is useful to refer paragraph 4 of the judgment which runs as follows :--
Dir. Of Settlements, A.P. & Ors vs M.R. Apparao & Anr on 20 March, 2002
The law is well settled that all observation made by the Apex Court is neither a ratio decidendi nor a obiter dictum. If a question of law arises in the case for decision, then decision on that point is a ratio decidendi and if the question has been considered as suggested by the parties though not necessary for decision then that becomes obitor dictum which though is not binding but is to be given a considerable weight in the matter. It is well settled that observation with regard to the factual matters or casual observations made by the Apex Court have no binding force. The Apex Court in the case of Director of Settlements, A.P. and Ors. v. M.R. Apparao and Anr., reported in (2002) 4 SCC 638 in paragraph 7 has held as follows :
1