Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.25 seconds)
Mohammad Aijaz Ansari vs State Of Up And 2 Others on 26 November, 2024 cites

State Of U.P. & Ors vs Saroj Kumar Sinha on 2 February, 2010

15. Same view was reiterated in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Saroj Kumar Sinha,12 wherein, this Court held that even in an ex-parte inquiry, it is the duty of the Inquiry Officer to examine the evidence presented by the Department to find out whether the unrebutted evidence is sufficient to hold that the charges are proved. The relevant observations made in Saroj Kumar Sinha13 are as follows:--
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 718 - S S Nijjar - Full Document

State Of Uttaranchal & Ors vs Kharak Singh on 13 August, 2008

22. The question that there is a salutary principle which requires, in the case of a major penalty, the fixation of a date, time and place for holding the inquiry, and further, requiring the Establishment to prove the charges through production of oral and documentary evidence before the Inquiry Committee by a presenting officer on their behalf, is well acknowledged in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Saroj Kumar Sinha, (2010) 2 SCC 772, Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank and others, (2009) 2 SCC 570, State of Uttaranchal and others v. Kharak Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 236 and the Bench decisions of this Court in State of U.P. and another v. Kishori Lal and another, 2018 (9) ADJ 397 (DB) (LB), Smt. Karuna Jaiswal v. State of U.P., 2018 (9) ADJ 107 (DB) (LB) and State of U.P. v. Aditya Prasad Srivastava and another, 2017 (2) ADJ 554 (DB) (LB).
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 227 - P Sathasivam - Full Document

The State Of U.P. vs Ram Charittar And Kishori Lal Both Sons ... on 14 December, 2005

22. The question that there is a salutary principle which requires, in the case of a major penalty, the fixation of a date, time and place for holding the inquiry, and further, requiring the Establishment to prove the charges through production of oral and documentary evidence before the Inquiry Committee by a presenting officer on their behalf, is well acknowledged in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Saroj Kumar Sinha, (2010) 2 SCC 772, Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank and others, (2009) 2 SCC 570, State of Uttaranchal and others v. Kharak Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 236 and the Bench decisions of this Court in State of U.P. and another v. Kishori Lal and another, 2018 (9) ADJ 397 (DB) (LB), Smt. Karuna Jaiswal v. State of U.P., 2018 (9) ADJ 107 (DB) (LB) and State of U.P. v. Aditya Prasad Srivastava and another, 2017 (2) ADJ 554 (DB) (LB).
Allahabad High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 26 - M C Jain - Full Document

Amalendu Ghosh vs North Eastern Railway (By The District ... on 15 January, 1960

"42. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Amalendu Ghosh v. North Eastern Railway[AIR 1960 SC 992], held that the purpose of holding a preliminary inquiry in respect of a particular alleged misconduct is only for the purpose of finding a particular fact and prima facie, to know as to whether the alleged misconduct has been committed and on the basis of the findings recorded in preliminary inquiry, no order of punishment can be passed. It may be used only to take a view as to whether a regular disciplinary proceeding against the delinquent is required to be held.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 26 - Full Document

Champaklal Chimanlal Shah vs The Union Of India on 23 October, 1963

43. Similarly in Champaklal Chimanlal Shah v. Union of India [AIR 1964 SC 1854] a Constitution Bench of this Court while taking a similar view held that preliminary inquiry should not be confused with regular inquiry. The preliminary inquiry is not governed by the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. Preliminary inquiry may be held ex parte, for it is merely for the satisfaction of the Government though usually for the sake of fairness, an explanation may be sought from the government servant even at such an inquiry. But at that stage, he has no right to be heard as the inquiry is merely for the satisfaction of the Government as to whether a regular inquiry must be held. The Court further held as under : (AIR p. 1862, para 12) "12. ... There must therefore be no confusion between the two enquiries and it is only when the government proceeds to hold a departmental enquiry for the purpose of inflicting on the government servant one of the three major punishments indicated in Article 311 that the government servant is entitled to the protection of that article [, nor prior to that]."
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 185 - K N Wanchoo - Full Document
1   2 Next