Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.19 seconds)A.K. Roy & Anr vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 29 September, 1986
22. As would appear from the order dated 23rd September, 2013, the
Coordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court, had called upon the
respondent/Bank to obtain instruction as to whether the changes
effected in the Discipline and Appeal Rules had been published in
the Official Gazette. The respondent/Bank, despite being aware of
the aforesaid situation, permitted the proceedings to continue. No
affidavit-in-opposition in either of the writ applications has been
filed. I find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of A. K. Roy
and Anr. (Supra), in paragraph 10 of its judgment has specifically
observed as follows:-
G. Vallikumari vs Andhra Education Society & Ors on 2 February, 2010
A. K. Roy and Another v. State of Punjab and Others,
reported in (1986) 4 SCC 326
G. Vallikumari v. Andhra Education Society and Others,
reported in (2010) 2 SCC 497
Joint Action Committee of Air Line Pilots' Association of
India (ALPAI) and Others v. Director General of Civil
Aviation and Others, reported in (2011) 5 SCC 435
Commissioner Of Police, Bombay vs Gordhandas Bhanji on 23 November, 1951
"27. Similar view has been reiterated by this
Court in Commr. of Police v. Gordhandas Bhanji
[1951 SCC 1088 : AIR 1952 SC 16] ,
Bahadursinh Lakhubhai Gohil v. Jagdishbhai M.
Kamalia [(2004) 2 SCC 65 : AIR 2004 SC 1159]
and Pancham Chand v. State of H.P. [(2008) 7
SCC 117 : AIR 2008 SC 1888] observing that an
authority vested with the power to act under the
statute alone should exercise its discretion
following the procedure prescribed therein and
interference on the part of any authority upon
whom the statute does not confer any
jurisdiction, is wholly unwarranted in law. It
violates the constitutional scheme."
Bahadursinh Lakhubhai Gohil vs Jagdishbhai M. Kamalia And Ors on 17 December, 2003
"27. Similar view has been reiterated by this
Court in Commr. of Police v. Gordhandas Bhanji
[1951 SCC 1088 : AIR 1952 SC 16] ,
Bahadursinh Lakhubhai Gohil v. Jagdishbhai M.
Kamalia [(2004) 2 SCC 65 : AIR 2004 SC 1159]
and Pancham Chand v. State of H.P. [(2008) 7
SCC 117 : AIR 2008 SC 1888] observing that an
authority vested with the power to act under the
statute alone should exercise its discretion
following the procedure prescribed therein and
interference on the part of any authority upon
whom the statute does not confer any
jurisdiction, is wholly unwarranted in law. It
violates the constitutional scheme."
State Of Andhra Pradesh vs N. Radhakishan on 7 April, 1998
27. Although, Mr. Saha Roy, by placing reliance on the judgment
delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of A.P.
v. N. Radhakishan, reported in (1998) 4 SCC 154, in particular on
paragraph 19 thereof, submits that after a prolonged delay, no
enquiry proceeding can be continued against the petitioner, the facts
in this case are different. In this case admittedly, the General
Manager on an erroneous premise had taken the decision to hold
the enquiry, though the charge sheet was issued by the Chairman.
As such the initiation of the proceeding cannot be said to be bad or
non est. Further the writ applications were pending for almost a
decade. It is not a case of delay in concluding the enquiry. In this
case the enquiry was concluded on 5th November, 2014, but for the
subsisting interim order, no final order could be given effect.
1