Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.28 seconds)
K. Nandagopal vs The Provost Marshal Ag/Pm And Anr. on 10 December, 2002 cites

Meenglas Tea Estate vs Its Workmen on 22 February, 1963

Placing reliance upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Meen Glass Tea Estate v. The Workmen, AIR 1963 SC 1719 the Court concluded that if the Inquiry Officer also acts as a prosecutor or witness, then there is clear violation of rules of natural justice and his findings are liable to be set aside. The only obligation which the law casts upon the Inquiry Officer while eliciting the truth cannot go beyond his limit as an Inquiry Officer and play the role of a prosecutor giving an indication that he was not fair and unbiased.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 240 - M Hidayatullah - Full Document

Nand Kishore Prasad vs State Of Bihar And Ors on 19 April, 1978

In Nand Kishore Prasad v. State of Bihar it was held that the disciplinary proceedings before a domestic tribunal are of quasi judicial character and, therefore, it is necessary that the Tribunal should arrive at its conclusions on the basis of some evidence, that is to say, such evidence which and that too, with some degree of definiteness, points to the guilt of the delinquent and does not leave the matter in a suspicious stale as mere suspicion cannot take the place of proof even in domestic enquiries. If, therefore, there is no evidence to sustain the charges framed against the delinquent, he cannot be held to be guilty an in that event, the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer would be perverse.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 200 - R S Sarkaria - Full Document

Punjab & Sind Bank & Ors vs Sakattar Singh on 29 November, 2000

25. The learned Counsel for the respondents have also relied upon the judgment to the effect that in case of unauthorised absence, Tribunal will not be justified in substituting its own view to that of the Disciplinary Authority and accordingly cited 2001 Vol. I SLR 261 Punjab and Sind Bank v. Sakattar Singh, wherein it has been held that once the person is on unauthorised absence and there is no record to substantiate the contention raised by the delinquent official the Court cannot interfere with the penalty. In the said case, the respondent was unable to produce any document in support of his contention. Moreover, the Bank in the said case has resorted to terminate the delinquent official by resorting the terms and conditions laid down in Bipartite Settlement. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 5 observed that: "if the respondents had submitted an explanation regarding his unauthorised absence or placed any material before Court that he did report for duty but was not allowed to join duty, an inquiry may have been necessitated but not otherwise. In this case, the employee-applicant had defaulted in not offering any explanation regarding his unauthorised absence from duty nor did he placed any material to show that he reported for duty within 30 days of notice as required by Clause (xvi) of IV Bipartite Settlement."
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 123 - Full Document
1   2 Next