Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.23 seconds)
Govindbhai Mohanbhai Garnada vs Divisional Controller & on 2 February, 2017 cites

Janatha Bazar (South Kanara Central ... vs The Secretary, Sahakari Noukarara ... on 21 September, 2000

Similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Ruston & Hornsby (I) Ltd. Vs. T.B. Kadam, AIR 1975 SC 2025; U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Basudeo Chaudhary & Anr., (1997) 11 SCC 370; Janatha Bazar (South Kanara Central Cooperative Wholesale Stores Ltd.) & Ors. Vs. Secretary, Sahakari Noukarara Sangha & Ors., (2000) 7 SCC 517;
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 183 - M B Shah - Full Document

U.P. State Road Transport Corp vs Suresh Chand Sharma on 26 May, 2010

In the light of the observations made in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (supra), the respondent was not under an obligation to adduce the evidence as per the procedure under the Code of Civil Procedure or Evidence Act and the evidence of the reporter who was admittedly examined was sufficient enough to bring home the guilt of the Page 5 of 6 HC-NIC Page 5 of 6 Created On Sun Aug 13 08:22:26 IST 2017 C/SCA/17295/2014 ORDER petitioner. If the driver was not examined and if the petitioner intended to rely upon his evidence, nothing prevented the petitioner to examine him as his own witness. No such attempts seem to have made and thus no infirmity is noticed in the departmental inquiry on this count. Testimony of the passenger was also not necessary as indicated in the said case. Smallness of the amount is also not material. What is material is the conduct of the employee and if in the public employment the conduct is not above board and is as serious as involving moral turpitude the same cannot be tolerated. The Labour Court has rightly observed that apart from the current incident, the petitioner was involved in 14 other illegalities, out of which few were of the similar nature. The Labour Court has observed that despite getting an opportunity to mend his ways, the petitioner refused to do so by repeatedly indulging into similar misconduct.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 176 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

State Of Haryana And Anr. vs Rattan Singh on 22 March, 1977

In State of Haryana & Anr. Vs. Rattan Singh AIR 1977 SC 1512, this Court has categorically held that in a domestic enquiry, complicated principles and procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 do not apply. The only right of a delinquent employee is that he must be informed as to what are the charges against him and he must be given full opportunity to defend himself on the said charges. However, the Court Page 4 of 6 HC-NIC Page 4 of 6 Created On Sun Aug 13 08:22:26 IST 2017 C/SCA/17295/2014 ORDER rejected the contention that enquiry report stood vitiated for not recording the statement of the passengers who were found travelling without ticket. The Court held as under: (SCCpp. 493-94,para 5) "We cannot hold that merely because statements of passengers were not recorded the order that followed was invalid. Likewise, the re-evaluation of the evidence on the strength of co-conductor's testimony is a matter not for the court but for the administrative tribunal. In conclusion, we do not think courts below were right in over-turning the finding of the domestic tribunal."
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 650 - V R Iyer - Full Document
1   2 Next