Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.22 seconds)
Ashish Kumar Goon vs Canara Bank Managing Director And Ors on 17 September, 2013 cites

B.Sc. Mlt Laboratory Technicians ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 23 January, 2007

He submits that any action of the petitioner was done in good faith to protect the interest of the bank and as per direction of the Sr. Manager Mr. T.K. Dasgupta. He also submits that the departmental authority had wrongly passed the order of compulsory retirement inasmuch as compulsory retirement can be imposed only in cases of gross misconduct. However in the case of the petitioner no gross misconduct has been committed by him. He therefore submits that the order of the compulsory retirement should be set aside and 5 quashed and the respondent be directed to reinstate the petitioner back in service and further places reliance in the case of (a) Kailash Nath Gupta Vs. Enquiry Officer (R.K. Rai) Allahabad Bank and others reported in AIR 2003 SC 1377 at paragraphs 11 and 12, (b) (1998) 7 SCC 310 M.S. Bindra Vs. Union of India at paragraph 13 and 2005 SCC (L&S) 728 Pritam Singh Vs. Union of India at paragraph 7, 9, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19 and 20.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras Cites 7 - Cited by 19 - Full Document

S.R.Tewari vs Union Of India & Anr on 28 May, 2013

6. Mr. S. Chamaria, learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank submits that the petitioner has misused his official position in the bank by committing fraud in the books of the bank and writing letter unauthorisedly in the capacity of the Manager thereby had exposed the bank to financial lost. The petitioner was given all opportunity as provided as per norms and procedures and therefore no fault can be found in the order of the Departmental Authority imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement to the petitioner. He also submits that this court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can not sit as Appellate Authority against the order passed by the Departmental authority as well as Appellate Authority and places reliance in the cases of (a) S.R. Tiwari Vs. Union of India reported in (2013) 6 SCC 602 at paragraph 13, 14, 15, 16 and 18 (b) State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Vs. Nemi Chand Nalwaya reported in (2011) 4 SCC 584 at paragraph 6, 7 and 8 and (2009) 15 SCC 620 at paragraph 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21. He therefore submits that in the absence of any arbitrary action, malafide or violation of any statutory regulation and extraneous consideration, the order of compulsory retirement should not be interfered with and the writ petition be dismissed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 279 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

State Bank Of Bikaner & Jaipur vs Nemi Chand Nalwaya on 1 March, 2011

6. Mr. S. Chamaria, learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank submits that the petitioner has misused his official position in the bank by committing fraud in the books of the bank and writing letter unauthorisedly in the capacity of the Manager thereby had exposed the bank to financial lost. The petitioner was given all opportunity as provided as per norms and procedures and therefore no fault can be found in the order of the Departmental Authority imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement to the petitioner. He also submits that this court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can not sit as Appellate Authority against the order passed by the Departmental authority as well as Appellate Authority and places reliance in the cases of (a) S.R. Tiwari Vs. Union of India reported in (2013) 6 SCC 602 at paragraph 13, 14, 15, 16 and 18 (b) State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Vs. Nemi Chand Nalwaya reported in (2011) 4 SCC 584 at paragraph 6, 7 and 8 and (2009) 15 SCC 620 at paragraph 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21. He therefore submits that in the absence of any arbitrary action, malafide or violation of any statutory regulation and extraneous consideration, the order of compulsory retirement should not be interfered with and the writ petition be dismissed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 335 - Full Document

Pritam Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 22 September, 2004

In the case of Pritam Singh Vs. Union of India, supra, the appellant has supplied absentee statement to one of the employee which was neither confidential document nor privilege document. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had come to the finding that no material on record 6 was placed before the Disciplinary Authority, Appellant Authority, Revisional Authority, Tribunal and before the High Court to reasonably form an opinion that compulsory retirement was in public interest. It was also held that the case was not a case of doubtful integrity.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 33 - A R Lakshmanan - Full Document
1