Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 28 (0.28 seconds)Managing Director Ecil Hyderabad Etc. ... vs B. Karunakar Etc. Etc on 1 October, 1993
24. As the said observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court are
also binding on the private parties and no evidence is adduced by the
26
Dr.GRR,J
CCCA No.139 of 2015
respondent-defendant that a copy of the inquiry report was furnished to the
appellant-plaintiff before issuing the termination order, the non-supply of
the enquiry report to the plaintiff is considered as violation of principles of
natural justice. However, the effect of non-supply of the enquiry report to
the delinquent was also considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the same
case of Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar (1 supra) and held as
follows:
Executive Committee Of Vaish Degree ... vs Lakshmi Narain And Ors on 12 December, 1975
30. Thus, even if non-supply of the enquiry report is considered as
violation of principles of natural justice and when the appellant-plaintiff is
entitled to seek the declaration of his termination as wrongful, he could
only seek for the consequential relief of damages for wrongful termination,
but was not entitled to seek for reinstatement or back-wages. The
judgments relied by the learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff in
34
Dr.GRR,J
CCCA No.139 of 2015
Pradeep v. Manganese Ore India Ltd. (6 supra) and M.S. Gill v. The
Chief Election Commission (7 supra), are pertaining to the employees
who fall under the category of either one of the three as mentioned in the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Executive Committee of Vaish
Degree College v. Lakshmi Narain [(1976) 2 SCC 58], but not for
private employees.
M/S. Pearlite Liners Pvt. Ltd vs Manorama Sirsi on 6 January, 2004
Though the appellant-plaintiff filed the suit seeking the relief of
damages, he filed his evidence affidavit stating that he was entitled for
declaration to declare that his removal from service was unjustified and
consequently sought for reinstatement or in the alternative for damages
equivalent to the salary till the age of his retirement which would have
been earned by him had he not been removed from service. The Hon'ble
Apex Court in Pearlite Liners (P) Ltd. v. Manorama Sirsi (11 supra) by
10
AIR 1975 KARNATAKA 146
11
(2004) 3 SCC 172
12
(2017) 5 SCC 623
13
2025 SCC OnLine J&K 198
17
Dr.GRR,J
CCCA No.139 of 2015
referring to its earlier judgment in Executive Committee of Vaish Degree
College v. Lakshmi Narain [(1976) 2 SCC 58] held that:
The Maharashtra State ... vs Prabhakar Sitaram Bhadange on 30 March, 2017
14. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Maharashtra State Cooperative
Housing Finance Corporation Ltd. v. Prabhakar Sitaram Bhadange
(12 supra) also held that:
Punjab National Bank & Ors vs K.K.Verma on 7 September, 2010
22. Punjab National Bank and others v. K.K. Verma (3 supra)
was also to the effect of non-supplying of inquiry report to the delinquent
and it was held therein that:
Sawai Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 2 May, 1986
25. The other contention raised by the learned counsel for the
appellant-plaintiff was that the charges framed against the appellant-
plaintiff were vague. The un-parliamentary language alleged to be used by
him was not mentioned in the charges and it was also not specified under
what statutory rule or provision he was charged, as such, the same was also
against the principles of natural justice and relied upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Sawai Singh v. State of Rajasthan (4 supra),
wherein it was held that:
Surath Chandra Chakrabarty vs State Of West Bengal on 14 December, 1970
26. He also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court
in Surath Chandra Chakrabarty v. State of West Bengal (5 supra),
wherein it was held that: