Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.43 seconds)P.D. Agrawal vs State Bank Of India & Ors on 28 April, 2006
Sri Raghavendra G Gayatri, learned HCGP, by taking me
through the inquiry record and placing reliance on the
decisions in the cases of P.D.Agrawal Vs. State Bank of
India and others, (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 43 and Government
of Andhra Pradesh and others Vs. V.Appala Swamy, (2007)
14 SCC 49, submitted that on account of unintended delay
in finalisation of the inquiry, which was initiated without
any kind of delay, no prejudice has occasioned to the
petitioner. He stressed that there is neither a pleading nor
any proof with regard to any prejudice caused to the
6
petitioner. He further submitted that there is suppression
of material fact by the petitioner, in that, the proceedings
which have taken place from 7.1.2012 till the date the writ
petition was filed has been withheld and obstruction was
caused for further proceeding with the inquiry with effect
from 27.4.2012.
Government Of A.P. And Ors vs V. Appala Swamy on 25 January, 2007
In the case of V. Appala Swamy (supra), Apex
Court has held as follows:
U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. & Ors vs Kamal Swaroop Tondon on 18 January, 2008
In U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. and Others
Vs. Kamal Swaroop Tondon - (2008) 2 SCC 41, it has been
laid down as follows:
Union Of India vs Alok Kumar on 16 April, 2010
In the case of Union of India and Others Vs.
Alok Kumar, (2010) 5 SCC 349, it has been stated that the
doctrine of 'de facto prejudice' has been applied both in
English as well as Indian law and the frustration of
departmental enquiries on a hyper-technical approach has
not found favour with courts in recent times. 'Prejudice de
facto' should not be based on mere apprehension or even
reasonable apprehension. Taking note of a legal maxim
'judicia posteriora sunt in lege fortiora', it was held as
follows:
R.C. Chandel vs High Court Of M.P. & Anr on 8 August, 2012
14. The charges alleged against the petitioner,
noticed supra, prima facie, are serious in nature. When
the charges are grave, it is not expedient in the interest of
justice, that on the ground of delay alone, the disciplinary
inquiry should be terminated. It is appropriate to take note
of the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of
R.C. Chandel Vs. High Court of M.P., (2012) 8 SCC 58,
wherein, with regard to the conduct of a Judge and the
judicial service, it has been held as follows: