Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.23 seconds)
K. Pushparaj vs The Controller And Auditor General Of ... on 17 December, 2004 cites

State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Mohd. Sharif (Dead) Through Lrs. on 13 January, 1982

11. The learned Counsel for the applicant referred to the judgment in State of U.P. v. Mohd. Sharif, AIR 1982 SC 937=1982(2) SLJ 259 (SC), in support of his contention that there is denial of reasonable opportunity as the charge sheet did not mention the date and time of the alleged misconduct, even the location of the incident in the vast forest and the copies of statement of witnesses recorded during the preliminary inquiry were not furnished to the delinquent at the time of disciplinary inquiry and held that there was denial of opportunity to defend the disciplinary inquiry.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 82 - Full Document

Kashinath Dikshita vs Union Of India (Uoi)And Ors. on 15 May, 1986

In Kashinath Dikshita v. Union of India and Ors., AIR 1986 SC 2118=1986(2) SLJ 279 (SC), non-supply of copies of statement of witnesses and copies of documents relied on by the Disciplinary Authority violates Article 311(2). In that case Government refused to furnish copies of the statement of witnesses at the stage of preliminary inquiry and that Government failed to show that no prejudice has caused to the delinquent on account of non-supply of copies of documents.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 216 - M P Thakkar - Full Document

Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd vs Girja Shankar Pant & Ors on 18 October, 2000

In Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Limited v. Girja Shankar Pant and Ors., AIR 2001 SC 24, a show cause notice served without documents, inquiry held without any date, examination of witnesses without appointing Presenting Officer, dismissal order passed few hours after personal hearing were held to be in hottest haste suffering from bias. The facts and the principles laid down in the above judgments in our view will not apply to the facts of the case on hand and the applicant had at no point of time requested for copies of the statements and they were never refused to be furnished to the applicant. On the other hand, the Inquiry Officer explained the charges and translated the same to the applicant.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 410 - U C Banerjee - Full Document

Apparel Export Promotion Council vs A.K. Chopra on 20 January, 1999

13. Applying the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court we have no hesitation in holding that there is sufficient evidence documentary and oral by the victims themselves of the sexual harassment in different form. It is also their evidence that the applicant is behaving in this manner for the past several years and that he has been coming to the office in an inebriated condition.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 566 - V N Khare - Full Document
1