Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.28 seconds)Bank Of India vs Apurba Kumar Saha on 14 December, 1993
31. Supreme Court in the case of Bank of India Vs. Apurba
Kumar Saha (supra) has held that an employee who had refused to
avail of the opportunities provided to him in a disciplinary proceedings
of defending himself against the charges of misconduct involving his
integrity and dishonesty, cannot be permitted to complain later that he had
been denied a reasonable opportunity of defending himself of the charges
levelled against him and the disciplinary proceeding conducted against
him by the Bank-employer had resulted in violation of principles of
natural justice of fair hearing.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Awasari ... vs Ramesh Bhimrao Narayankar And Ors on 10 March, 2016
33. In my view, in this case, there is no dispute that the
respondent no.1 was issued several notices from time to time by the
::: Uploaded on - 07/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2016 00:49:21 :::
ppn 16 wp-4903.16 (j).doc
enquiry committee to remain present and the headmaster of the
petitioner no.1 school also personally had called the respondent no.1 to
attend the enquiry proceedings, the respondent no.1 however on one or
the other pretext failed to remain present before the enquiry committee.
When an employee chose to remain absent deliberately or intentionally
before the enquiry committee in the enquiry proceedings inspite of
opportunities having been given to him, he cannot be allowed to
challenge the enquiry proceedings on merits. I am thus not inclined to
accept the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent no.1 that
the respondent no.1 did not remain present in the enquiry proceedings
unintentionally. The judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of
Ranjan Kumar Mitra Vs.Andrew Yule & Co.Ltd. & Ors. (supra) and
Bank of India Vs. Apurba Kumar Saha (supra) squarely apply to the
facts of this case. I am respectfully bound by the said judgment.
Chairman, Ganga Yamuna Gramin Bank & Ors vs Devi Sahai on 12 February, 2009
He also placed reliance
of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Chairman, Ganga
Yamuna Gramin Bank and Ors. vs. Devi Sahai, reported in (2009) 11
SCC 266 and in particular paragraphs 22 and 24 thereof and the
judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ranjan Kumar Mitra
Vs.Andrew Yule & Co.Ltd. & Ors., reported in (1997) 10 SCC 386 and
in particular paragraph 1 thereof.
Section 9 in The Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 [Entire Act]
Anant R Kulkarni vs Y.P.Education Society & Ors on 26 April, 2013
In support of this submission, learned counsel for the petitioners
placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of
Anant R. Kulkarni Vs. Y.P. Education Society & Ors., reported in 2013
(4) Bom.C.R. 93 and in particular paragraphs 12 to 18 and 20 to 29
thereof. He submits that the respondent no.1 had retired on 31 st December
2015 whereas, the order was passed by the school tribunal on 25 th
February 2016.
1