Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.23 seconds)
Mareppa S/O Yamanappa Hipparagi vs The Life Insurance Corporation Of India on 28 April, 2025 cites

Roop Singh Negi vs Punjab National Bank & Ors on 19 December, 2008

23. When the petitioner/delinquent official has given contradictory statements and when it would not amount to unequivocal or categorical admission, it was bounden duty of the Disciplinary Authority to examine the witnesses in respect of the alleged charge and the petitioner ought to have been provided an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. Non-examination of witnesses would amount to violation of principles of natural justice. In that, the petitioner had no opportunity to defend himself in the enquiry. Learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in ROOP SINGH NEGI (supra), wherein in an identical circumstances the Hon'ble Apex Court at paragraphs 14 and 15 has observed that the departmental proceeding is a quasi judicial proceedings. The Enquiry Officer performs quasi
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 1059 - S B Sinha - Full Document

P.V. Mahadevan vs The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu ... on 23 January, 2017

WA No.100247 of 2023 c/w WA No.100353 of 2023 the enquiry. Therefore, learned Single Judge is justified in placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of P.V.MAHADEVAN VS. MANAGING DIRECTOR, TAMILNADU HOUSING BOARD2 and coming to the conclusion that the charge sheet is liable to be set aside only on the ground of delay in issuing charge memo.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 83 - Full Document

Br.Manager, Central Bank Of India vs Prabhulal on 16 December, 2022

WA No.100247 of 2023 c/w WA No.100353 of 2023 Court in the case of STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. HEMANT KUMAR3, all other judgments are irrelevant and which are on different fact situation. All other judgments would lay down the principles as to when the High Court could interfere in the matter of order passed in a departmental enquiry. Further, the decisions would state that under what circumstances the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India could interfere with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. All those decisions are on the order passed imposing penalty, after conducting enquiry by following the procedure prescribed under law. In the instant case, the respondents/LIC has failed to follow the prescribed procedure in conducting the enquiry and as such those decisions would not come to the aid of the respondents/LIC.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1