Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.67 seconds)Article 309 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 41 in The State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 [Entire Act]
Central Bank Of India vs C. Bernard on 9 October, 1990
In Central Bank of India (supra) also this Court held that an Enquiry
Officer need not be an officer of the Bank as even a third party can be
appointed an Enquiry Officer to enquire into the conduct of an employee.
What was, however, emphasised was that a non-official cannot act as a
disciplinary authority and pass an order of punishment against the
delinquent employee. It is in that view of the matter it was held that a
retired employee could not act as a disciplinary authority.
Union Of India And Another vs Tulsiram Patel And Others on 11 July, 1985
In Union of India vs. Tulsiram Patel : (1985) 3 SCC 398 this Court
held :
Rattan Lal Sharma vs Managing Committee, Dr. Hari Ram ... on 14 May, 1993
In Rattan Lal Sharma vs. Managing Committee, Dr. Hari Ram (Co-
education) Higher Secondary School : (1993) 4 SCC 10 it was held :
Indian Airlines Ltd vs Prabha D. Kanan on 10 November, 2006
19. Submission of Mr. Patil that the Managing Director could not have
directed the proceeding to be placed before the Board, in our opinion, has
equally no merit. Appointing authority of Class `A' Officers is the Board.
Managing Director is the disciplinary authority only in respect of minor
punishments. When a major punishment is proposed to be imposed, the
Board of Directors alone will have the jurisdiction to consider the gravity of
the alleged misconduct so as to enable it to pass an appropriate order. It is
idle to contend that had Managing Director passed an order, an appeal could
have been preferred thereagainst. If the entire Board is the appropriate
authority for taking a decision, it is only that authority which was required
to take decision and not any other. (See Indian Airlines Ltd. vs. Prabha D,
Kanan : (2006) 11 SC 67).