Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.21 seconds)
Yugul Kishore Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 20 February, 2025 cites

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

employees second was Ramzan Khan, (para 4,5,7,8,9, appointed followed; the ECIL v. B. 10,11 &12) before 42nd Karunakar, amendment.SC Amendment and Prabhat rejected the removed 2nd Kumar address claim, upheld show cause . technical the SC (3-judge defects amendment, bench) in K.C. (violation of and ruled that Asthana ruled natural justice), both CMD CIL the report where remand and CMD ECL unnecessary, is ordered to could initiate but SC (3- cure such proceedings, judge bench) in defects.(p but only CMD Mohd. 1,3,5,6,7,8) CIL could Ramzan Khan impose a major held it essential penalty (p if the inquiry 6,12-22). officer other than 2. No disciplinary application of authority. Non- mind- SC furnishing ruled that violates natural CMD ECL justice.The signed the constitution
Supreme Court of India Cites 64 - Cited by 2043 - Full Document

M/S Shakti Tubes Ltd.Tr.Director vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 16 December, 2008

Patna High Court L.P.A No.1324 of 2019(12) dt.20-02-2025 13/14 Particulars The State of Chairman- Managing Srikant Singh State of Bihar UP & Ors. cum- Director, Vs. State of & Ors Vs. Vs. Prabhat Managing ECIL, Bihar & Ors Vikash kumar Director, Coal Hyderabad & (Patna HC) Kumar (SC) India LTD Ors Vs. (Patna HC) &Ors Vs. B.Karunakar Ananta Saha & Ors & Ors (SC) (SC) the disciplinary vulnerability. authority. Non-
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 33 - S B Sinha - Full Document

The State Of Bihar & Ors vs Vikash Kumar on 14 August, 2013

Having regard to the Co-ordinate Bench decisions in the case The State of Bihar and others vs. Vikash Kumar (cited supra) and Srikant Singh vs. State of Bihar (cited supra), we are of the opinion that Co-ordinate Bench in the aforementioned decisions has not appreciated the principle or object laid down therein insofar as quashing penalty order on technical like non-examination of witnesses and other procedure, matter is to be remanded to disciplinary / inquiring authority to commence inquiry from the defective stage.
Patna High Court - Orders Cites 6 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Union Of India vs Y.S.Sadhu.Ex-Inspector on 22 September, 2008

"13. It is a settled legal proposition that once the court sets aside an order of punishment on the ground that the enquiry Patna High Court L.P.A No.1324 of 2019(12) dt.20-02-2025 8/14 was not properly conducted, the court should not severely preclude the employer from holding the inquiry in accordance with law. It must remit the case concerned to the disciplinary authority to conduct the enquiry from the point that it stood vitiated, and to conclude the same in accordance with law. However, resorting to such a course depends upon the gravity of delinquency involved. Thus, the court must examine the magnitude of misconduct alleged against the delinquent employee. It is in view of this that courts/tribunals are not competent to quash the charge-sheet and related disciplinary proceedings before the same are concluded on the aforementioned grounds. (Vide ECIL v. B. Karunakar [(1993) 4 SCC 727 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 1184 : (1993) 25 ATC 704 : AIR 1994 SC 1074], Hiran Mayee Bhattacharyya v. S.M. School for Girls [(2002) 10 SCC 293 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 1033], U.P. State Spg. Co. Ltd. v. R.S. Pandey [(2005) 8 SCC 264 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 78] and Union of India v. Y.S. Sadhu [(2008) 12 SCC 30 : (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 126 : AIR 2009 SC 161])"
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 144 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Managing Director, U.P. State Bridge ... vs Prabhat Kumar Jha on 19 April, 2023

Therefore, matter is required to be referred to the larger bench insofar as consideration whether alleged charge relating to demand and acceptance of illegal gratification of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) is serious charge and in the event of quashing the penalty, order of dismissal and appellate authority order, matter is required to be remanded in the light of observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL (cited supra) read with State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. vs. Prabhat Kumar reported in 2022 Live Law SC 736.
Allahabad High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 8 - P Diwaker - Full Document

Anant R Kulkarni vs Y.P.Education Society & Ors on 26 April, 2013

6. The allegation against the respondent is of absence from duty for more than 327 days which was made the basis for issuing the charge-sheet. Even after the charge-sheet was served, the respondent failed to participate in the departmental proceedings or to join duties. This Court in Anant R. Kulkarni v. Y.P. Education Society, (2013) 6 SCC 515 held that once the Court set aside an order of punishment on the ground that the enquiry was not properly conducted, the Court should not preclude the employer from holding the inquiry in accordance with law. It must remit the case concerned to the disciplinary authority to conduct the enquiry from the point that it stood vitiated, and to conclude the same in accordance with law. This Court held as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 262 - B S Chauhan - Full Document
1   2 Next