Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.25 seconds)
Sh. Ranbir Singh vs Union Of India Through on 15 December, 2014 cites

Managing Director Ecil Hyderabad Etc. ... vs B. Karunakar Etc. Etc on 1 October, 1993

Again, according to him, he was not given reasonable opportunity to defend his case and sub-rule (18) of Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 has been violated. Further, he has stated the quantum of punishment imposed upon him is very much disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct. 8. He has also submitted that the enquiry was not conducted in accordance with the principles laid down in the case of Managing Director, ECIL Vs. B. Karunakar and Others (supra). According to the said judgment, the Disciplinary Authority ought to have passed an order or imposed penalty on the delinquent servant after considering not only the report of enquiry but also the defence of the delinquent servant. Further, his contention is that the Disciplinary Authority has failed to note the fact that he has rendered 12 years continuous service. He has also alleged that the Respondents have taken extraneous material and substantiated the enquiry report by relying upon them. In this regard he has submitted that the Enquiry Officer has considered his earlier absence period from duty while imposing upon him the major penalty of dismissal from service.
Supreme Court of India Cites 64 - Cited by 2043 - Full Document

Ministry Of Finance & Anr vs S.B. Ramesh on 2 February, 1998

In the judgment in the case of S.B. Ramesh (supra), the Apex Court has held that the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed upon the Respondent therein was based on no evidence and the enquiry was totally unsatisfactory. However, in our considered view, the aforesaid judgment has no application in this case as the Applicant was given sufficient opportunity to participate in the enquiry but he deliberately did not do so. Even after a Public Notice was issued in the Newspaper, the Applicant did not participate in the enquiry proceedings. The prosecution has also produced sufficient evidence to prove the charges. Therefore, the aforesaid judgment with regard to non-observance of minimum required procedure is not applicable in this case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 206 - K Venkataswami - Full Document

R.P. Bhatt vs Union Of India And Ors on 14 December, 1986

As regards the judgment in the case of R.P. Bhatt vs. Union of India (supra), the Apex Court held that except where the Appellate Authority disagrees with the findings of the Disciplinary Authority, neither Article 311(2) nor rules of natural justice requires that in every case the Appellate Authority should state in its order its own reasons. In the present case the Appellate Authority has considered the Disciplinary Authoritys order and agreed with the same. Therefore, the contention of the Applicant that the Appellate Authority has passed its order in a mechanical manner has no relevance. For the same reason, the said judgment relied upon by the Applicant is not applicable. Again, in the case of Capt.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 131 - A P Sen - Full Document

Capt.M. Paul Anthony vs Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Anr on 30 March, 1999

M. Paul Anthony (supra), the Apex Court has found that the petitioner was not given subsistence allowance during the period of suspension. However, in this case the Applicant himself has admitted that he has been given the some amount during the suspension period. Therefore, his contention that he has not been paid any subsistence allowance is vague.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 1683 - S S Ahmad - Full Document

Chairman And Managing Director,United ... vs P.C.Kakkar Chairman And Managing ... on 11 February, 2003

12. As regards the quantum of punishment is concerned, it is a well settled position that the Courts/Tribunals should not interfere in the administrative decisions unless it is found to be illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or was shocking the conscience of the Court as held by the Apex Court in Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank and Others Vs. P.C. Kakkar 2003 (4) SCC 364, B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. U.O.I. 1995 (6) SCC 749, Rameshwar Prasad Vs. Union of India 2006 (2) SCC 1 and State Bank of Hyderabad and Another Vs. V.P. Kote Rao 2008 (3) SCT 153.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 428 - A Pasayat - Full Document

B.C. Chaturvedi vs Union Of India And Ors on 1 November, 1995

12. As regards the quantum of punishment is concerned, it is a well settled position that the Courts/Tribunals should not interfere in the administrative decisions unless it is found to be illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or was shocking the conscience of the Court as held by the Apex Court in Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank and Others Vs. P.C. Kakkar 2003 (4) SCC 364, B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. U.O.I. 1995 (6) SCC 749, Rameshwar Prasad Vs. Union of India 2006 (2) SCC 1 and State Bank of Hyderabad and Another Vs. V.P. Kote Rao 2008 (3) SCT 153.
Supreme Court of India Cites 28 - Cited by 2256 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

N.K. Prasada vs Government Of India And Ors on 12 April, 2004

Even though he came to his office and collected the Article of Charges, he again in an indisciplined manner, did not cooperate with the enquiry proceedings. Therefore, the Enquiry Officer was forced to proceed against him ex-parte. An official who was given ample opportunity to defend his case but intentionally refuses to avail himself of it cannot turn around and say that the Respondents have proceeded against him in violation of the principles of natural justice. As held by the Apex Court in the case of N.K. Prasada Vs. Government of India and Others 2004 (6) SCC 299, if a party after having proper notice chose not to appear, he at a later stage cannot be permitted to say that he had not been given a fair opportunity of hearing. The relevant part of the said judgment reads as under:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 55 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Sohan Lal Gupta (Dead) Thr. L.Rs. & Ors vs Smt. Asha Devi Gupta & Ors on 1 September, 2003

24. The principles of natural justice, it is well settled, cannot be put into a straitjacket formula. Its application will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. It is also well settled that if a party after having proper notice chose not to appear, he at a later stage cannot be permitted to say that he had not been given a fair opportunity of hearing. The question had been considered by a Bench of this Court in Sohan Lal Gupta v. Asha Devi Gupta of which two of us (V.N. Khare, CJ. and Sinha, J.) are parties wherein upon noticing a large number of decisions it was held: (SCC p. 506, para 29) "29. The principles of natural justice, it is trite, cannot be put in a straitjacket formula. In a given case the party should not only be required to show that he did not have a proper notice resulting in violation of principles of natural justice but also to show that he was seriously prejudiced thereby."
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 124 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Yashpal Singh vs National Textile Corporation Ltd. And ... on 28 July, 1998

5. Thereafter, Applicant has filed Review Application No.143/2012 against the aforesaid order stating that many of the arguments advanced by him were not considered by this Tribunal. He has specifically submitted that the judgment of the Apex Court in the case Honble Apex Court referred to by him in the cases of Ministry of Finance & Anr. vs. S.B. Ramesh JT 1998 (1) SCC 319, R.P. Bhatt vs. Union of India 1986 (1) SLR 470, Yashpal Singh vs. National Textile Corporation Ltd. 1991 (1) SLR 680 and Capt.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 2 - L S Panta - Full Document
1