Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (0.23 seconds)
Rajesh Vashist vs M/O Home Affairs on 11 September, 2023 cites

State Of Punjab & Ors vs Prem Sarup on 18 September, 2008

Citing the case of State of Punjab vs. Prem Sarup 2008 (12) SCC 522, the applicant has pointed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court rejected the contentions of the State on the ground that it had not been able to show those witnesses who turned hostile before the criminal court have been examined in the departmental proceedings and no material had been brought to prove the contention.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 20 - Full Document

Union Of India & Anr vs M.M. Sarkar on 8 December, 2009

Further drawing our attention to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs M.K.Sarkar 2010, 2 SCC 59 it has been contended that when a stale or dead issue/dispute is considered and decided date of such decision cannot furnish a fresh cause of action for reviving the dead issue or time barred dispute. Therefore, allowing the respondents to proceed further when the departmental proceedings at his distance of time will be very prejudicial to the appellant.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 716 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

Roop Singh Negi vs Punjab National Bank & Ors on 19 December, 2008

It is contended that the disciplinary authority despite the case being a case of no evidence imposed a penalty of reduction of pay by two stages in the time scale of pay for a period of one year with cumulative effect, though the applicant was seeking voluntary retirement. Consequently he did not approach next higher authority by way of submitting any representation. A show cause notice was issued whereby the reviewing authority proposed to enhance the penalty to that of dismissal and despite the applicant's submission that this was a case of no evidence, the penalty was imposed and enhanced to dismissal without any reasoning. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn our attention to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Roop Singh Negi vs. Punjab National Bank (2009) 2 SCC 570, wherein a charge sheet based on FIR proceedings was quashed as neither any witness was examined nor any document was proved during the inquiry proceedings. The learned counsel for the respondents per 24 OA No.2276/2015 contra has reiterated the claim made in their counter reply pointing out that the applicant was involved in a criminal case of cheating of "NAGMANI" upto the tune of Rs.1.5 crores along with 13 other people under a criminal conspiracy of conducting a fake raid, which resulted into an FIR and ultimately arrest of the applicant. He had retained Rs.5 lakhs illegally out of 1.5 crores deal which was recovered from him. A departmental proceeding was accordingly started wherein the charges were proved which led to the impugned orders. It is further contended that the FIR which was supposed to have been quashed was not because the applicant was not involved in the case but because of a compromise leading to some settlement amicably among the parties.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 1059 - S B Sinha - Full Document

B.C. Chaturvedi vs Union Of India And Ors on 1 November, 1995

"7. It is now well settled that the courts will not act as an appellate court and reassess the evidence led in the domestic enquiry, nor interfere on the ground that another view is possible on the material on record. If the enquiry has been fairly and properly held and the findings are based on evidence, the question of adequacy of the evidence or the reliable nature of the evidence will not be grounds for interfering with the findings in departmental enquiries. Therefore, courts will not interfere with findings of fact recorded in departmental enquiries, except where such findings are based on no evidence or where they are clearly perverse. The test to find out 30 OA No.2276/2015 perversity is to see whether a tribunal acting reasonably could have arrived at such conclusion or finding, on the material on record. Courts will however interfere with the findings in disciplinary matters, if principles of natural justice or statutory regulations have been violated or if the order is found to be arbitrary, capricious, mala fide or based on extraneous considerations. (vide B. C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India - 1995 (6) SCC 749, Union of India vs. G. Gunayuthan - 1997 (7) SCC 463, and Bank of India vs. Degala Suryanarayana
Supreme Court of India Cites 28 - Cited by 2256 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Union Of India & Another vs G. Ganayutham on 27 August, 1997

"7. It is now well settled that the courts will not act as an appellate court and reassess the evidence led in the domestic enquiry, nor interfere on the ground that another view is possible on the material on record. If the enquiry has been fairly and properly held and the findings are based on evidence, the question of adequacy of the evidence or the reliable nature of the evidence will not be grounds for interfering with the findings in departmental enquiries. Therefore, courts will not interfere with findings of fact recorded in departmental enquiries, except where such findings are based on no evidence or where they are clearly perverse. The test to find out 30 OA No.2276/2015 perversity is to see whether a tribunal acting reasonably could have arrived at such conclusion or finding, on the material on record. Courts will however interfere with the findings in disciplinary matters, if principles of natural justice or statutory regulations have been violated or if the order is found to be arbitrary, capricious, mala fide or based on extraneous considerations. (vide B. C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India - 1995 (6) SCC 749, Union of India vs. G. Gunayuthan - 1997 (7) SCC 463, and Bank of India vs. Degala Suryanarayana
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 687 - M J Rao - Full Document

Bank Of India And Anr vs Degala Suryanarayana on 12 July, 1999

"7. It is now well settled that the courts will not act as an appellate court and reassess the evidence led in the domestic enquiry, nor interfere on the ground that another view is possible on the material on record. If the enquiry has been fairly and properly held and the findings are based on evidence, the question of adequacy of the evidence or the reliable nature of the evidence will not be grounds for interfering with the findings in departmental enquiries. Therefore, courts will not interfere with findings of fact recorded in departmental enquiries, except where such findings are based on no evidence or where they are clearly perverse. The test to find out 30 OA No.2276/2015 perversity is to see whether a tribunal acting reasonably could have arrived at such conclusion or finding, on the material on record. Courts will however interfere with the findings in disciplinary matters, if principles of natural justice or statutory regulations have been violated or if the order is found to be arbitrary, capricious, mala fide or based on extraneous considerations. (vide B. C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India - 1995 (6) SCC 749, Union of India vs. G. Gunayuthan - 1997 (7) SCC 463, and Bank of India vs. Degala Suryanarayana
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 402 - R C Lahoti - Full Document
1   2 Next