Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.20 seconds)Nagaraj Shivarao Karjagi vs Syndicate Bank Head Office Manipal And ... on 30 April, 1991
27. The Apex Court in Karjagi's case had reiterated that UPSC advice is advisory, not binding and that UPSC does not act as Appellate Authority of D.A./E.O. The advice is not binding. It further held that no third party either the Government or CVC can advice the Disciplinary Authority on how the exercise its quasi-judicial power. It struck down the circulars issued by Ministry of Finance and Syndicate Bank.
The Banking Companies (Acquisition And Transfer Of Undertakings) Act, 1970
Section 19 in The Banking Companies (Acquisition And Transfer Of Undertakings) Act, 1970 [Entire Act]
Punjab National Bank And Ors.The Chief ... vs Sh. Kunj Behari Misra, Sh. Shanti Prasad ... on 19 August, 1998
17. A 3 Judges Bench of the Apex Court in Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Behari Misra has held as under:
Sher Bahadur vs Union Of India & Ors on 16 August, 2002
18. The Apex Court in Sher Bahadur v. Union of India 2002 SCC (L&S) 1028 has held:
Section 2 in The Banking Companies (Acquisition And Transfer Of Undertakings) Act, 1970 [Entire Act]
Section 6 in The Banking Companies (Acquisition And Transfer Of Undertakings) Act, 1970 [Entire Act]
K. R. Deb vs Collector Of Central Excise, Shillong on 7 April, 1971
The Constitution Bench in K.R. Deb's case is also to the same effect. The Apex Court in Sher Bahadur has explained as to what is meant by sufficiency of evidence and that a mere statement that in view of the oral documentary and circumstantial evidence the charges are held to be proved can not satisfy the rule of sufficiency of evidence.
A. N. D'Silva vs Union Of India on 6 December, 1961
17. We are indeed surprised to see the impugned directive issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs (Banking Division). Firstly, under the Regulation, the Bank's consultation with Central Vigilance Commission in every case is not mandatory. Regulation 20 provides that the Bank shall consult the Central Vigilance Commission wherever necessary, in respect of all disciplinary cases having a vigilance angle. Even if the Bank has made a self-imposed rule to consult the Central Vigilance Commission in every disciplinary matter, it does not make the Commission's advice binding on the punishing authority. In this context, reference may be made to Article 320(3) like Regulation 20 with which we are concerned provides that the Union Public Service Commission or the State Public Service Commission, as the case may be, shall be consulted - on all disciplinary matters affecting a civil servant including memorials or petitions relating to such matters. This Court in A.N. D'Silva v. Union of India (1962) Suppl. (1) (SCR) 968, has expressed the view that the Commission's function is purely advisory. It is not an Appellate Authority over the Inquiry Officer or the Disciplinary Authority. The advice tendered by the Commission is not binding on the Government. Similarly, in the present case, the advice tendered by the Central Vigilance Commission is not binding on the Bank or the punishing authority. It is not obligatory upon the punishing authority to accept the advice of the Central Vigilance Commission.