Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.26 seconds)
Kulamani Biswal vs Union Of India on 4 July, 2022 cites

Haryana Financial Corporation & Anr vs Kailash Chandra Ahuja on 8 July, 2008

23. That apart, he states that the judgment of the Guwahati High Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ASHEESH KUMAR YADAV W.P.(C) 5563/2020 Page 10 of 26 Signing Date:04.07.2022 18:25:59 Court in the case of Md. Safiqul Haque (supra) is also not in conformity and contradicts with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Haryana Financial Corporation v. Kailash Chandra Ahuja, (2008) 9 SCC 31, wherein it has been held that mere non supply of inquiry report would not ipso facto vitiate the whole inquiry proceedings.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 227 - C K Thakker - Full Document

Nahar Singh Yadav & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 19 November, 2010

15. In the present case the Enquiry Officer had found that the charges against the appellant had been proved. Nevertheless the disciplinary authority came to the conclusion that the summary of allegations which had initially been prepared did not bring out all the relevant facts. In the absence of detailed summary of allegations the appellant must have been placed at a disadvantage. It is on the basis of the summary of allegations that evidence of prosecution witnesses was recorded and opportunity granted to cross-examine them. Such right cannot be effectively exercised if the summary of allegations is vague. Realizing this serious infirmity, the disciplinary authority ordered the re-framing of the summary of allegations and de novo enquiry. We find no illegality have been committed. Apart from the law laid down by the Supreme Court we find that even Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 would give a power to an authority to rescind, amend or revoke an order passed by it. What has happened, in effect, in the present cases is that the order dated January 17, 1980, whereby the enquiry was initially ordered, has been rescinded and a fresh enquiry ordered. The principles enshrined in Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, are clearly applicable and it cannot be said that the disciplinary authority could not act in the manner in which he did. Rather we do no find any infirmity in the decision of the learned Single Judge and in our opinion he rightly came to the conclusion that the disciplinary authority has not acted contrary to law. No other contention is raised. This appeal is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ASHEESH KUMAR YADAV W.P.(C) 5563/2020 Page 25 of 26 Signing Date:04.07.2022 18:25:59 as to costs."
Supreme Court of India Cites 29 - Cited by 53 - D K Jain - Full Document

State Of Assam & Anr vs J. N. Roy Biswas on 6 October, 1975

In this regard, he has relied upon the judgment in the case of Nahar Singh v. Union of India, 1991(21) DRJ 171, which relies upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in State of Assam v. J.N. Roy Biswas, (1976) 1 SCC 234 and K.R. Deb v. CCE, (1971) 2 SCC 102, wherein it was held that depending on the facts of each case it is possible to order de novo inquiry if there has been no proper inquiry because of any serious defect. If, for example, principle of natural justice have been violated then it is open to the Disciplinary Authority to come to the conclusion that a de novo inquiry should be held.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 105 - V R Iyer - Full Document
1   2 Next