Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.33 seconds)
Vijay Shankar vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 29 September, 2004 cites

Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Ors vs T.Srinivas on 5 August, 2004

17. We find that in a recent decision in the case of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Ors. v. T. Srinivas, 2004 AIR SCW Page 4558 the Hon'ble Apex Court considered the earlier decisions in the case of M. Paul Anthony (supra) and State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena, AIR 1997 Page 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that stay of departmental proceedings during the pendency of criminal proceedings in regard to the same misconduct should not be a matter of course. Seriousness of charge brought against the delinquent should also be looked into while taking any decision in this regard. The Hon'ble Apex Court had inter alia held as below:
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 153 - Full Document

Gannon Dunkerley & Co. Ltd., K.L. ... vs Union Of India (Uoi), The Collector Of ... on 20 December, 2002

21. The Ld. Counsel has also taken the point that respondent No. 2 having filed the complaint/FIR before the police against the applicant and he is the primary witness in the criminal proceeding he could not have acted as the Disciplinary Authority, He has relied on a Govt. of India decision appearing below Rule 12 of CCS (CCA) Rule wherein it is stated that where the officer who is the prescribed Disciplinary Authority is/will be the complainant and/or the witness in a disciplinary proceedings, another officer should be appointed as the Disciplinary Authority. However, in the instant case, the respondent No. 2 is not the complainant or witness in the disciplinary proceedings but in the criminal proceedings and he may be a witness in the criminal trial and therefore the above decision is not applicable. The Ld. Counsel has also contended that the persons who have conducted the preliminary enquiry should not be involved in the disciplinary proceedings as no proper justice can be expected from such persons who are likely to be biased against the applicant. His submission is that since respondent No. 2 has conducted the preliminary enquiry, he should not act as Disciplinary Authority as in that case there is every likelihood of being biased. Same is the case of the Members of the Board of Enquiry.
Bombay High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 40 - H L Gokhale - Full Document

Surat Singh And Ors. vs S.R. Bakshi And Ors. on 5 October, 1970

23. The Ld. Counsel has also complained that in spite of all his requests the applicant was not supplied with the documents asked for on one ground or the other and in some cases it was stated that those documents were lost. His further contention is that the applicant has not even been supplied the preliminary enquiry report. The Ld. Counsel has, therefore, contended that denial of those documents, particularly the preliminary enquiry report has prejudiced the applicant in D.A. proceedings and he, therefore, made an appeal before the Appellate Authority but no decision was conveyed to him by the said authority notwithstanding a number of reminders. Therefore, the applicant was compelled to decide not to participate in the enquiry. The ld. Counsel has relied on the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Surat Singh and Ors. v. S.R. Bakshi, AIR 1971 Delhi 133. The Ld. Counsel has emphasised the general principle of law that exclusion of pre-decisional opportunity of hearing cannot effectively remedied by post decisional opportunity of hearing.
Delhi High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

State Of U.P vs Harendra Arora & Anr on 2 May, 2001

We find that the Hon'ble Apex Court has recently held that even non-furnishing of the enquiry report may not always be fatal unless the delinquent has shown as to how he has been prejudiced vide State of U.P. v. Harendra Arora, AIR 2001 SC 2319, Oriental Insurance Co. v. S. Balakrishnan, AIR 2001 SC 2400. In the instant case, the applicant has merely stated that he has been denied opportunity to prove his innocence by non-furnishing the documents which he asked for, but there is no elaborate reasoning as to how he has been prejudiced. It is noticed that the respondents have furnished most of the documents and also permitted him to inspect other documents from police custody and also obtained necessary permission for inspection from the Ld. Court of SDJM where the documents were lying. Thus, we are not much convinced by the argument of the ld. Counsel that the applicant has been prejudiced for non-supply of some of the documents. Another grievance of the applicant is that he was not allowed to cross-examine Shri H.L. Saha, the sole prosecution witness. In the supplementary it is brought to our notice that Shri Saha was subsequently held to be guilty of the aforesaid misappropriation of the Govt. money and the same have been recovered from his retrial dues/gratuity. Therefore, it is not correct that the applicant was responsible as charged. Since Shri Saha has already retired, there may be difficulty in compelling him to call again for cross-examination. Even if he was found to be guilty for alleged defalcation, it still remains to be decided whether the applicant or others, who were charge-sheeted, were also involved in the said defalcation or misappropriation and this can only be proved in the D.A. proceedings when finalised. Involvement directly or indirectly in misappropriation of Govt. money is certainly a misconduct.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 192 - B N Agrawal - Full Document

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs S. Balakrishnan on 21 February, 2001

We find that the Hon'ble Apex Court has recently held that even non-furnishing of the enquiry report may not always be fatal unless the delinquent has shown as to how he has been prejudiced vide State of U.P. v. Harendra Arora, AIR 2001 SC 2319, Oriental Insurance Co. v. S. Balakrishnan, AIR 2001 SC 2400. In the instant case, the applicant has merely stated that he has been denied opportunity to prove his innocence by non-furnishing the documents which he asked for, but there is no elaborate reasoning as to how he has been prejudiced. It is noticed that the respondents have furnished most of the documents and also permitted him to inspect other documents from police custody and also obtained necessary permission for inspection from the Ld. Court of SDJM where the documents were lying. Thus, we are not much convinced by the argument of the ld. Counsel that the applicant has been prejudiced for non-supply of some of the documents. Another grievance of the applicant is that he was not allowed to cross-examine Shri H.L. Saha, the sole prosecution witness. In the supplementary it is brought to our notice that Shri Saha was subsequently held to be guilty of the aforesaid misappropriation of the Govt. money and the same have been recovered from his retrial dues/gratuity. Therefore, it is not correct that the applicant was responsible as charged. Since Shri Saha has already retired, there may be difficulty in compelling him to call again for cross-examination. Even if he was found to be guilty for alleged defalcation, it still remains to be decided whether the applicant or others, who were charge-sheeted, were also involved in the said defalcation or misappropriation and this can only be proved in the D.A. proceedings when finalised. Involvement directly or indirectly in misappropriation of Govt. money is certainly a misconduct.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 42 - B N Agrawal - Full Document
1   2 Next